ORDER G.D. Saxena, J. 1. Since both the appeals, namely, Misc. Appeal No. 812/2002 filed by the Oriental Insurance Company and Misc. Appeal No. 854/2002 filed by claimant/injured are giving rise to the common accident and common Award passed by the Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra (Gwalior) dated 5th September 2002 in claim case No. 22/2002, they are taken up together for being decided by this one judgment. Facts, in short, just for the decision of these appeals are that on 6th September 1999, at around 1 o'clock, the injured Saurabh with his mother was sitting near the shop of Ashok Mistri, which was situated at the bus stand of Jhansi-Gwalior Highway. At that juncture, the vehicle Matador bearing registration No. MP015 D/4837 came in a hectic speed from Datia and run over the left leg of injured causing with severe injuries. The FIR of the incident was lodged and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court. During treatment, the leg of the injured was amputated below the knee. In claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, the learned claims tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, granted the award of Rs. 3,15,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of application till full and final award which was directed to be paid by the non-petitioners on the principles of joint and several liability. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred the latter appeal while against the directions of payment of compensation, the Insurance Company has come up with former appeal seeking setting aside of such directions. 2. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant contended that the award amount prima facie looking to the nature of the injuries by the claimant appears to be on lower side and therefore taking into consideration all the aspects involved in the case, appropriate sum on each and every head of claim may be awarded to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is prayed that the award passed by the learned tribunal may be modified to that extent by allowing the appeal of injured. 3. On the other hand, the submission put forth by the leaned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the driver, who was driving the vehicle on the spot himself was responsible for causing such accident. 3. On the other hand, the submission put forth by the leaned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the driver, who was driving the vehicle on the spot himself was responsible for causing such accident. It is submitted that he was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence to ply the vehicle and since there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with a liability to indemnify on the basis of vicarious liability for the negligence of the engaged driver. On this basis, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the directions passed by the learned tribunal regarding fixing liability for payment of the award amount may be set aside and/or in alternative the Insurance Company may be directed to deposit the amount before the tribunal and recover the same thereafter in execution proceedings pending before the tribunal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and the relevant provisions of law. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, following questions call for consideration:- (i) Whether the amount of award is liable to be enhanced after considering the recognized principles applicable to the heads; (ii) Whether the Insurance Company for want of proper licence of the driver involved in accident, on legal and contractual aspect, deserves to be exonerated from indemnifying the vicarious liability of the insured from payment of award amount to the claimant; (iii) Whether on the doctrine of pay and recover, direction can be issued in favour of the Insurance Company? 6. On perusal of the entire evidence available on record, it appears that on the fateful day, the accident was caused by matador which at the time was being driven by Munshilal in which a severe injury was caused to a child Saurabh who was sitting at the shop by the side of public road. It is also admitted that during treatment of the injured, his left leg was amputated below knee which caused permanent disability to the injured throughout his entire life. It is also admitted that that the vehicle in question was financed by Antyvyaavsai Sahakari Samiti Maryadit through Collector of the relevant District and was got insured by the Collector as chairperson with Insurance Company under comprehensive package. It is also admitted that that the vehicle in question was financed by Antyvyaavsai Sahakari Samiti Maryadit through Collector of the relevant District and was got insured by the Collector as chairperson with Insurance Company under comprehensive package. So, the Insurance company while issuing the policy is bound to satisfy the liability of the insured for accident being caused by the insured vehicle in the light of the terms and conditions of the policy and as per statutory and contractual liability between both of them. 7. In the case of Subu laxmi Vs. T.N. State Transport Corporation (2012) 10 SCC 177 , the Hon. Apex Court while considering the issue as to what would be proper compensation in such cases, observes as follows:- 6. Be it noted, the High Court has granted Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities. In this context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein this Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumarh as laid down as under: (Govind Yadav case SCC p. 693, para 18). 18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state whether in the said case, the compensation awarded to the claimant victim was just and reasonable or was he entitled to enhanced compensation under certain heads, namely: (Govind Yadav case SCC p. 693, para 19) (i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg; (ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability; (iii) Future medical expenses; (iv) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg; (v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage; and (vi) Loss of expectation of life. 8. On examining the evidence of Rajesh Sahu father of injured (AW-3) and Angad Ram Sahu, grandfather of the injured (AW-2) in the light of the law laid down in the case of Subu laxmi (supra) it appears that though the injured being 3 1/2 years of age was non-earning but on account of accident and amputation of right leg, his future prospects as common man is altogether finished. Though there is no yardstick to measure loss of future prospects of a child, but if the child is good in studies and studying in reasonable good school, prima facie presumption should be that his future prospects would be good and bright. It also appeared that injured is only a male issue with two elder daughters of parents. Considering the above aspects, the amount which is awarded by the learned tribunal is enhanced keeping in view the sums that have been awarded. On perusal of the award under appeal, it appears that award on other heads, namely, (i) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (ii) Future medical expenses (iii) Pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg; (iv) Future expenses for special treatment like calipers, fixation of artificial leg etc. (v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage ought to have been granted. (v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage ought to have been granted. Thus, looking to the specific scenario of this case, the award amount is increased in above heads, which was not at all taken into consideration by the learned MACT by a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in addition to the amount awarded against the heads which seems to be on lower side. Hence, the claimant shall now be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 8,15,000/- instead of Rs. 3,15,000/- alongwith 9% interest on the amount till payment is made. 9. Now, the only question that remains to be considered is whether the driver of the vehicle involved in accident was holding a valid licence for driving the specified vehicle? 10. It is admitted that Munshilal (Respondent No. 3 in Misc. Appeal No. 812/02) was driver of Matador having registration No. MP015/D 4837 which was involved in accident. It is also admitted that the vehicle involved in accident was purchased by the respondent No. 1-Lachchiram on providing finance by Antyvyaavsai Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Tikamgarh under the scheme initiated by the State for unemployed schedule caste members having driving licence for motor passengers, transport business and such vehicles after purchase under the scheme were handed over to 4-6 persons belonging to schedule caste either on rent or loan. In such circumstances, the present vehicle was registered in the name of Collector-cum-Adhyaksha Antyvyaavsai Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Tikamgarh. The policy for insurance of the vehicle was obtained by the Collector-cum-Adhyaksha Antyvyaavsai Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Tikamgarh. So the Collector-cum-Adhyaksha Antyvyaavsai Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Tikamgarh is registered owner and insured of the vehicle involved in accident. On perusal of the evidence on record it further seems that the licence (Ex. D/6) to drive the vehicle was issued to Murari, son of Ram Swaroop, a resident of Hanuman Ganj Dabra whereas in the present case, driver's name of the vehicle is disclosed as Munshilal son of Ramswaroop. In their statements Tara Chand (NAW-1) and Mahendra Kumar Sharma (NAW-3) employees of the Regional Transport Office Gwalior have deposed that the driving licence (Ex. D/6) was issued to Murarilal son of Ram Swaroop. They further stated that there were manipulations made in the official record of the licence in order to change the name from Murarilal to Munshilal. In their statements Tara Chand (NAW-1) and Mahendra Kumar Sharma (NAW-3) employees of the Regional Transport Office Gwalior have deposed that the driving licence (Ex. D/6) was issued to Murarilal son of Ram Swaroop. They further stated that there were manipulations made in the official record of the licence in order to change the name from Murarilal to Munshilal. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that neither licence was produced before the Investigating Officer of relevant crime nor before the learned tribunal. Therefore it is not proved beyond clog of doubts that the driver of the vehicle involved in accident was having the proper and valid driving licence. 11. The question therefore for consideration is whether the Insurance Company for want of proper licence of the driver involved in accident, on legal and contractual aspect can be exonerated from indemnifying the vicarious liability of the insured from payment of award amount to claimant or on the doctrine of pay and recover direction can be issued to the Insurance Company to recover the amount after payment in same execution proceeding from the registered owner of the vehicle. 12. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224 , at page 226 the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows:- Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur case that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. 13. In Bhav Singh Vs. Savirani & another 2008 ACJ 1043 Full bench of this court observes as follows:- 10. Sub Section (5) of Section 147 of the Act, however provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under Section 147 of the Act shall be liable to indemnify a person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or classes of persons. Thus if the policy of insurance covers any liability in addition to the liability under Section 147(1) of the Act, the insurer will be liability to indemnify the insured in case of any liability not because of the provisions of sub section (1) of section 147 but because of the terms and conditions of contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured. Therefore, if the contract of insurance provides for a liability to a passenger or to an employee other than the liabilities provided under sub section (1) of the Section 147 of the Act, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured against such liability. 14. The doctrine of 'pay and recover' would be ordered only in the case where the Insurance Company is successful in its defence available under section 149 it may yet be required to pay the amount to the claimant and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view that the Insurance Company can be directed to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the registered owner of the vehicle. In view of aforesaid discussions, both the appeals are hereby allowed. The award amount of Rs. Under such circumstances, this court is of the view that the Insurance Company can be directed to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the registered owner of the vehicle. In view of aforesaid discussions, both the appeals are hereby allowed. The award amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- is enhanced from Rs. 5,00,000/- more. Hence, now the appellant/claimant of Misc. Appeal No. 854/02 shall be entitled to receive amount of Rs. 8,15,000/- (Rs. Eight Lac Fifteen Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 8% payable from date of filing of the claim petition before tribunal within three months from the date of order of this court. It is for the Insurance Company to take up appropriate proceedings before the Executing Court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal. The Executing Court shall then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, registered owner of the vehicle, i.e., the Collector-cum-Adhyaksha Antyvyaavsai Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Tikamgarh M.P. shall make payment to the insurer.