JUDGMENT :- The brief facts of the case area s follows:-The first respondent herein / complainant had filed M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2003, against the appellant herein and the owner of the vehicle stating that when he was walking on the Sankagiri Main Road, on 12.12.2002, at about 8 p.m., on the left side of the road, the first respondent's auto had been driven by its driver on the same direction in a reckless manner and dashed against him. As a result, he had sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition has been filed and compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was claimed. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and opposed the claim petition. The respondent stated that the driver of the auto had not committed the said accident. Further, the averments in the claim regarding claimant's age, income, nature of injuries, occupation and mode of medical treatment were not admitted. It was submitted that the driver of the auto was not possessing a valid driving licence and that the vehicle was not covered by valid documents viz., R.C., F.C., etc. Hence, the respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed three issues, viz., "(i) Whether the first respondent's driver had committed the said accident in a reckless manner? (ii) Whether the driver of the auto was possessing a valid driving licence? (iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?" 4. On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and seven documents had been marked, viz., F.I.R., accident report, Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, charge sheet, criminal Court judgment and medical bills. On the side of the respondent, two witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked, viz., driving licence, insurance policy, letter sent by the insurance company to the owner of the vehicle, accident claim form, letter from Regional Transport Office. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 12.12.2002, when he and his wife were proceeding on the cycle on the Sankagiri Main Road, the auto bearing registration No.TN-67-C-9457 coming from the same direction behind him had dashed against him. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that on 12.12.2002, when he and his wife were proceeding on the cycle on the Sankagiri Main Road, the auto bearing registration No.TN-67-C-9457 coming from the same direction behind him had dashed against him. P.W.1 further stated that he had sustained injuries on his left ear and head and on both sides of his cheek and he has been hospitalized for a period of seven days at a private hospital initially and subsequently took treatment at Government Hospital, Salem. Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents. 6. R.W.1 who is attached to the Regional Transport Office, Aathur as Junior Assistant had adduced evidence that the R.T.O. office had issued driving licence on 30.04.2002 to operate a two wheeler and light motor vehicle to the driver of the offending vehicle. R.W.2 had adduced evidence that he is an Assistant, attached to the Insurance Company and had stated that the said auto was insured with his company. Supporting their evidence, the above mentioned documents were marked. 7. On considering the evidence of witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the auto and on observing that the said auto was insured with the Insurance Company, held the Insurance Company liable and directed them to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.18,060/- with interest @ the rate of 9% per annum. 8. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 9. The highly competent counsel vehemently argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence and that he did not have requisite endorsement on his licence to drive the auto and as such, as the policy conditions of insurance had been violated, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 10. The highly competent counsel for the claimant vehemently argued that the Junior Assistant of the R.T.O. Office adduced evidence that the driver was issued a valid licence to operate two wheeler as well as light motor vehicle. The offending vehicle is also covered under light motor vehicle category. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation since the vehicle was insured with them. The offending vehicle is also covered under light motor vehicle category. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation since the vehicle was insured with them. The claimant had sustained grievous injuries and he had been hospitalized for seven days as an inpatient and therefore, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the driver of the offending vehicle had pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court. It is seen on scrutiny of evidence of Assistant in the R.T.O. Office that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence to operate light motor vehicle including the offending vehice, viz, auto. Further, this Court is of the view that the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal since the Tribunal had framed necessary issues and decided the same in an appropriate manner. Therefore, this Court directs the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest thereon as per Tribunal findings within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to deduction of earlier deposits made, if any, by the Insurance Company. 12. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order. 13. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, dated 28.07.2004 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.