Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company challenging the award passed in favour of injured claimant respondents Jagannath Kumawat, who has been awarded a sum of Rs.44,440/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident involving the vehicle of respondent No.3, which was insured with the appellant insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.- 2009 ACJ 1298 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.-2011 (3) TAC 625 (SC) = 2011(2) CCR 1132 (SC) and argued that even if the owner did not appear in response to the notice of the claim petition, the defence set up by the insurance company that the offending vehicle that is the truck did not have the permit to ply would be available then in terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the liability to make payment of compensation should be farsened on the owner rather than on the appellant-insurance company. 3. The appellant has separately filed an appeal being CMA No.4167/2011 against the same award, which was a common award passed in two claim cases; one is of the injured in the present matter and another is of death claim in the claim case No.93/09. 4. In the present case, I find that the injured has been awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him considering the fact that he remained hospitalised for nine days and then he also remained under treatment for a long time. He has been awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- for loss of income, Rs.5,000/- for mental agony, Rs.4,000/- for the nutritious food and Rs.12,440/- for actual expenses incurred by him for his maintenance and treatment. 5. I therefore do not find it appropriate to interference in the appeal for such an amount. However, it is directed that if eventually the appeal No.4167/2011 filed by the appellant insurance company in the death claim case No.93/09 is allowed in their favour, the owner respondent No.3 M/s. Shri Bajrang Tube Well Company would be liable to pay to the appellant-insurance company, the said amount paid to the claimant-injured with interest @ 6% per annum. With that direction, this appeal is dismissed.