Judgment :- 1. The New India Assurance Company appealed against the award of the compensation on two grounds, namely, violation of terms and conditions of the policy and quantum of compensation. 2. The learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having proper endorsement to drive the vehicle. A staff from RTO office also has been examined as RW1. However, the Tribunal has brushaside that evidence holding that RTO himself ought to have been examined. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence of PW2, who mentioned that the disability is at 6.8%. After giving compensation for disability, again the Tribunal granted Rs.1,00,000/- for the very same disability. It is double compensation. The Tribunal granted compensation under the head 'mental agony' as well as 'pain and suffering'. It is also double compensation. The claimant has paid only a small amount towards medical bills and major amount has been paid by TTK company. But the Tribunal granted him the entire amount. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant did not know, whether the driver of the offending bus was duly licensed. Under a scheme of TTK, it has paid part of the medical amount. The Insurance Company is not concerned with that. A third party giving financial assistance to the injured cannot make the insurance company to deny him compensation. 5. At the time of accident, the injured was 54 years old. PW2 Doctor, examined and issued his disability certificate. The claimant/injured examined himself as PW1. The Tribunal noted four injuries. The injured was hospitalized for eight days and was having continuous treatment. He had suffered injury on his right hand and shoulder. In the circumstances, he has been granted Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation. But, again referring to Ex.P12, the Tribunal has awarded him Rs.6,800/-. This is not correct. 6. The Tribunal has treated mental agony, and pain and suffering separately and awarded him Rs.10,000/- each. It should be under one head. So, we delete the amount granted under the head mental agony. Towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.10,000/- he is awarded Rs.20,000/-. 7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-under the head functional disability. In the facts and circumstances, it is deleted. The claimant is licensed to drive two-wheelers. It should be under one head. So, we delete the amount granted under the head mental agony. Towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.10,000/- he is awarded Rs.20,000/-. 7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-under the head functional disability. In the facts and circumstances, it is deleted. The claimant is licensed to drive two-wheelers. Considering the nature of the injury and it effects upon him, he will have some difficulty in driving a vehicle. So there is loss of amenities of life. For loss of amenities of life, he is awarded Rs.25,000/-. In other respects, we are not interfering with the award of the Tribunal. 8. The modified award amount is as follows:- 9. The second respondent has driven the offending bus. The evidence of RW1 shows that the driver had no proper endorsement to drive that particular type of vehicle. To establish this, it is not necessary that RTO himself should come to the Court. The claimant is a motor cyclist. He is a third party. The policy was in force. There is no evidence from the Insurance Company that the bus owner had willfully placed the bus in the possession of the driver, who is not duly licensed. In such circumstances, when especially the Insurance police is in force, an innocent third party/injured cannot be made to suffer. But at the same time, the insured/third respondent having not followed the policy condition, first the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount to the claimant and then recover it from the bus owner. 10. In the result, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is modified. The claimant/first respondent is totally awarded Rs2,20,581/-with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. Within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the appellant shall deposit the entire modified compensation amount before the Tribunal, less the amount, if any already deposited. The first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount up to the said modified amount less amount, if any, already withdrawn. The balance amount together with corresponding interest shall be refunded to the appellant. On payment of the entire compensation amount, the appellant can recover that amount from the third respondent, namely, S.Mohamed Ibrahim. For this purpose, the appellant need not file a separate suit. It can file an execution petition before a competent Court to collect this amount. The balance amount together with corresponding interest shall be refunded to the appellant. On payment of the entire compensation amount, the appellant can recover that amount from the third respondent, namely, S.Mohamed Ibrahim. For this purpose, the appellant need not file a separate suit. It can file an execution petition before a competent Court to collect this amount. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated the above. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.