JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Act) hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated 23-4-2005 passed by the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Keonjhar(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 254 of 2002. 2. The facts of the case are that on 7-6-2002 while the claimant-respondent No. 1 was going on a cycle, an auto-rickshaw bearing Registration No. OR-09-C-2088 came in a high speed and dashed against the claimant-respondent No. 1. As a result of such accident, the claimant-respondent No. 1’s leg was broken and he also sustained injury on his shoulder and was taken to hospital for treatment. The claimant-respondent No. 1 spent Rs. 3122/- for his treatment. The further case of the claimant was that he was earning a sum of Rs. 3,600/- per month as a mason. 3. With these facts the claimant-respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. 4. The Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the averments made in the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the autorickshaw had no valid driving licence and the vehicle was not covered with a valid insurance policy at the time of accident. It also pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is high and excessive. 5. The claimant examined two witnesses including himself and filed documents marked as Exts.1 to 12 in support of his claim. The Insurance Company has examined none, but produced one document marked as Ext.A. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and rival contentions of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 14,622/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said compensation to the claimant within a period of forty-five days and in the event of failure, the compensation amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company confines his arguments only to the extent for grant of right of recovery of the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle and to reduce the rate of interest awarded by learned Tribunal as the same is high and excessive. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company confines his arguments only to the extent for grant of right of recovery of the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle and to reduce the rate of interest awarded by learned Tribunal as the same is high and excessive. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal submits that the matter may be disposed of in the manner and spirit in which the motor vehicle claim cases are disposed of in Lok Adalat, to which the learned counsel for the appellant has no objection. 9. The disputes remain to be decided in the present appeal are with regard to right of recovery of awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle by Insurance Company and the rate of interest. 10. The issue with regard to right of recovery has been dealt by the Tribunal in Paragraph 8 of the judgment, which is quoted below : Issue Nos. 1 & 3 Though it is contended that the driver had no valid licence and the vehicle was not duly insured, no material was placed to that effect. On the other hand, Ext.5; the copy of driving licence revealed that the driver had a licence to drive the auto-rickshaw and Exts. 10 and 11 revealed that the vehicle was duly insured. Moreover, Ext. 4, the seizure list also shows that the police seized the insurance policy which was valid. Exts. 4, 10 and 11 taken together reveal that the vehicle was duly insured and Ext.5 and Ext.A revealed that the driver had a valid licence. No evidence was placed to show that there was any breach of policy condition. Since the vehicle was duly insured, O.P. No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation. In view of the above categorical finding of the learned Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to grant right of recovery of the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle to appellant-Insurance Company. 11. Considering the period of accident, it would be just and proper to fix the rate of interest at 7% per annum. 12. In view of the above, the Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11. Considering the period of accident, it would be just and proper to fix the rate of interest at 7% per annum. 12. In view of the above, the Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,622/-(Rupees fourteen thousand six-hundred twenty-two) along with interest @ 7% per annum to the claimant-respondent No. 1 from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The entire amount of compensation with interest shall be deposited before the Tribunal within three months from today. On deposit of the said amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the claimant-respondent No. 1 on proper identification. 13. On production of the evidence/receipt in support of deposit of the above amount of compensation along with interest before the Tribunal, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall refund the statutory deposit of Rs. 7,311/- along with interest accrued thereon to the appellant-Insurance Company. 14. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Appeal dismissed.