Judgment Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the original claimant has preferred the present Appeal. 3. It is the case of the appellant that on 13.12.1989 at about 5:30 pm. while he was returning from Police Headquarters, Ahmednagar, on his bicycle, a Maruti van bearing registration no.MJF-4920 gave a dash to him from his backside. The accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti van by respondent no.1-Manmohansingh. The petitioner was working as a Police Constable during the relevant time at Police Station, Rajur. According to him, he has suffered fracture to his left clavicle and scapula, making him 10% permanently disabled. He apprehend that he might be relieved from the services. He therefore claimed compensation of Rs.71,000/-on all heads. 4. Respondent no.1 remained absent in the proceedings. Respondent no.2-Rasiklal, the owner of the Maruti van had pleaded that respondent no.1 was not at all under his employment. On the date of the accident, he had infact handed over the Maruti van to the garage of one Yellapa Mistri and without the knowledge of the garage owner, respondent no.1 took away the vehicle and caused the accident. He therefore submitted that he is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent no.3 -the insurer of the vehicle submitted that since the minor was driving the van, without having any valid license, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and as such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner. 5. Before the learned Member, the petitioner examined himself. On behalf of the respondent no.2-the vehicle owner, he himself entered the witness box, supported by the deposition of garage owner-Yellapa Mistri, who co-operated in the investigation, carried by the Police in the accident. 6. The learned Member scanned the evidence in minute details. The learned Member, disbelieved the version of the vehicle owner, that he had handed over the van to the garage owner, as particular kind of repairs were not detailed by him. Further, for want of documentary evidence in this regard, the version was disbelieved. In the circumstances, holding that the minor was driving the vehicle, without having valid driving license, to the knowledge of the respondent no.2-owner, the entire claim petition was dismissed even against the van owner. 7. Further, for want of documentary evidence in this regard, the version was disbelieved. In the circumstances, holding that the minor was driving the vehicle, without having valid driving license, to the knowledge of the respondent no.2-owner, the entire claim petition was dismissed even against the van owner. 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the present Appeal is preferred. 8. Mr. V.S. Bedre, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Member of the Tribunal has examined the evidence in minute details, though the oral evidence was corroborated by the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that since the van owner has done everything possible in his control at the time of handing over the custody of the vehicle to the garage owner, it cannot be said that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance on his behalf. In that view of the matter, according to him, the insurance Company could not have been exonerated. 9. None appeared for respondent no.1 i.e. the driver of the vehicle and respondent no.3the insurance Company. 10. On the basis of the above material, following points arise for my determination: I) Whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation, if any? II) If answer to the above point is in the affirmative, then what should be the quantum of compensation? My answer to point no.I is in the affirmative and to point no.II is Rs.40,000/-for the reasons to follow. REASONS : 11. The learned Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti van. There is no challenge to the said finding by any of the respondents. 12. Respondent no.2 has entered the witness box before the learned Member and has deposed that on the relevant date, he had handed over the van to the garage owner. He also pointed towards the statement made by him in that respect to the Police, at the time of the investigation. His witness Ravindra Yellapa deposed that on the relevant day, the van was handed over to him for the purpose of repairing. After repairing, he kept the same in the garage but one Manmohansingh i.e. respondent no.1 came in connection with some other matter and took away the key of the van from the garage and started the same. His witness Ravindra Yellapa deposed that on the relevant day, the van was handed over to him for the purpose of repairing. After repairing, he kept the same in the garage but one Manmohansingh i.e. respondent no.1 came in connection with some other matter and took away the key of the van from the garage and started the same. Suddenly, he heard the sound of crushing the same and found that the accident had occurred. During cross-examination, he also stated that his statement was recorded by the Police and the contents of the same were true and correct. 13. The certified copy of the chargesheet filed on record shows that the statements of Ganesh Yellapa, Vishnu Yellapa, Ravindra Yellapa were also recorded. 14. Since the learned Member was seized with the Petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he should not have given great weight to certain discrepancy like absence of statement from the van owner about the exact nature of repairs. Further, the learned Member ought to have considered that there cannot be any documentary evidence regarding the handing over of the van to garage owner for the purpose of repairs. The learned Member, further, minutely scanned the oral evidence on record and disbelieved the version of respondent no.2, though supported by the garage owner. In that view of the matter, we shall have to conclude that the accident has occurred at the hands of the respondent no.1, who had taken away the Maruti van from the custody of the garage owner. 15. It would be thus clear that respondent no.2-van owner had handed over the custody of the van to the garage owner, for the purpose of repairing. Thus, he has taken due care at the time of handing over of the van and if suddenly, the respondent no.1 the then minor, has taken away the key from the garage and started the vehicle, suddenly causing the accident within minutes, it cannot be said that the owner of the vehicle had committed any breach of any term or condition of the policy of the insurance. 16. In the case of "Guru Govekar V. Miss Filomena F. Lobo A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1332" similar situation had arisen. 16. In the case of "Guru Govekar V. Miss Filomena F. Lobo A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1332" similar situation had arisen. The car owner had handed over the car to the mechanic for carrying out certain electrical repairs to the car and thereafter, the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of the mechanic. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "14. Thus on the facts of the case before us we are of the view that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation found to be due to the claimant as a consequence of the injuries suffered by her in a public place on account of the car colliding with her on account of the negligence of the mechanic who had been engaged by the repairer who had undertaken to repair the vehicle by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 94 of the Act which provides that no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter VIII of the Act. Any other view will expose innocent third parties to go without compensation when they suffer injury on account of such motor accidents and will defeat the very object of introducing the necessity for taking out insurance policy under the Act." 17. In the present case, if we come to the conclusion that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, as the minor was driving the van, then it would expose the appellant, the innocent third party walking on the road and also respondent no.2-van owner, who has taken due care in handing over the custody of the van to the garage owner. In that view of the matter, finding no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the van owner. This takes us to find out the quantum of the compensation. 18. The injury certificate issued by one Dr.Tholar shows that the petitioner has suffered a fracture of left clavicle and scapula. Dr. This takes us to find out the quantum of the compensation. 18. The injury certificate issued by one Dr.Tholar shows that the petitioner has suffered a fracture of left clavicle and scapula. Dr. Pathak has certified that the petitioner is suffering from 10% permanent disability, as the fracture has resulted in frozen shoulder. 19. No documentary evidence regarding the expenses was placed on record. The learned Tribunal expressed the possibility of reimbursement of the expenses, the petitioner/appellant being a Government Servant. Further, there was no evidence to show that there was any loss to the income of the petitioner, as he was getting the salary, being a Government Servant. In the circumstances, the learned Member of the Tribunal observed that an amount of Rs.12,000/-granted towards the No-fault liability was just and sufficient. 20. It is to be noted that the petitioner was 35 years old at the time of occurrence of the accident. His left hand had become disabled due to the frozen shoulder due to the fracture to clavicle and scapula. The Doctor has found him 10% permanently disabled. In absence of documentary evidence regarding the expenses and without any evidence that reimbursement was granted to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards the medical expenses could have been just and reasonable. Towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities, an amount of Rs.10,000/-would be just and sufficient. 21. Though, the petitioner did not place on record any documentary evidence, it is clear that in view of the fracture to clavicle and scapula, the petitioner must have been bedridden or taken rest atleast for a period of four weeks. In the circumstances, an amount of Rs.5000/-towards the loss of leave period ought to have been granted. 22. In the circumstances, taking an overall view of the matter, compensation of Rs.25,000/-as detailed above could be the just compensation in the present case. 23. As regards interest, it may be noted that the petition was filed in the year 1990 and the compensation is now being awarded after two decades. In the circumstances, grant of any interest would be atrocious sofar as the Insurance Company is concerned. Therefore, by enhancing compensation from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.40,000/-(including the amount granted towards no-fault liability) instead of grant of interest at any specified rate. 24. In the circumstances, the Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. In the circumstances, grant of any interest would be atrocious sofar as the Insurance Company is concerned. Therefore, by enhancing compensation from Rs.25,000/-to Rs.40,000/-(including the amount granted towards no-fault liability) instead of grant of interest at any specified rate. 24. In the circumstances, the Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The order of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is set aside. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.40,000/-to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of the present order. Upon failure to pay the said compensation, they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of default, till the realization of the same, including the amount paid towards the No-fault liability.