Judgment : P. Devadass, J. The appeal: 1. In this appeal, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle involved in the road accident, questions the award of compensation on the ground of liability as well as quantum. 2. On 9.3.2006, at about 10.30 a.m. on the Namakkal-Thuraiyur Road, near Koolipatty Maha Bharathi School Branch Road, Karunanithi (first respondent), a Special Sub-Inspector of Police, came driven his TVS-50 bike. At that time, the Tractor insured with the appellant came driven pulling the Trailer. Accident took place. In this, Karunanithi sustained serious head injury. Became unconscious. Relapsed into coma stage. In the circumstances, his Department medically invalidated him on medical grounds. Award of Compensation: 3. In M.C.O.P.No.500 of 2006, the injured claimed compensation. The Claims Tribunal adverting to his age, income and extent of disability adopted multiplier method and awarded him compensation as under:- Sl.No. Description Amount in Rs. Loss of Income 14,36,400 Pain and suffering 1,50,000 Mental agony 1,00,000 Nutritious food 25,000 5 Transportation expenses 25,000 6 Attendant charges 1,08,000 7 Medical expenses 2,72,000 8 Future Medical expenses 1,00,000 Total 22,16,400 Rounded off to 22,16,000 Contention : Insurer 4. As against the award of the Tribunal, the insurer directed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal questioning the quantum of compensation assessed as well as its liability to pay it. 5. It is pertinent here to note that pending appeal, the injured had passed away in coma stage. His wife and children, namely, respondents 3 to 7 were brought on record. 6. Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the owner has insured only the Tractor. In this accident, Karunanithi was injured by the Trailer, for which, there is no insurance coverage. Further, Sivakumar, the driver of the vehicle had only a learner's licence and at the time of accident that was also not in force. 7. The learned counsel further contended that actual salary of the injured was Rs.12,602/- per month. However, the Tribunal arbitrarily raised it to Rs.14,000/- p.m. At the time of accident, the injured was 56 years old. After medical invalidation, he received pension and other benefits. These aspects were overlooked by the Tribunal. Upto his 58 years, full multiplier can be applied and for the rest of the period, partial multiplier alone could be taken. However, the Tribunal took full multiplier. Further, under other items of compensation excessive amount has been granted. After medical invalidation, he received pension and other benefits. These aspects were overlooked by the Tribunal. Upto his 58 years, full multiplier can be applied and for the rest of the period, partial multiplier alone could be taken. However, the Tribunal took full multiplier. Further, under other items of compensation excessive amount has been granted. Contention : Claimants 8. Mr. T.Selvakumaran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 7 contended that by evidence, it was established that the Tractor hit the injured. The Tractor was having insurance coverage. The driving licence of the offending vehicle has been subsequently extended. It is not said that he was disqualified from hold a driving licence. Further, at the time of accident, even if the erring driver did not hold a valid driving licence, the victims who are third parties should not be made to suffer. Therefore, a direction for "pay and recover" can be issued. In this respect, the learned counsel cited JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. BALA JAIN AND OTHERS [2011 (7) MLJ 833 (SC)] 9. The learned counsel also contended that subsequently, as per sixth pay commission revised pay scale were implemented retrospectively from 1.1.2006. It was much prior to the date of accident. As per that, he is entitled to be paid Rs.19,089/- p.m. However, the Tribunal took only Rs.14,000/-. 10. The learned counsel further contended that it is a pathetic case. From the date of accident, the injured relapsed into coma stage, he did not recover his consciousness at all and almost he has been a dead person. His disability was determined at 95%. In the circumstances, the Tribunal adopted the multiplier method and taken the full multiplier 9'. [See SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (6) SCC 121 ]. There cannot be split multiplier. In this respect, the learned counsel cited K.R.MADHUSUDAN & OTHERS Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ANOTHER [2011 (1) TN MAC 161 (SC)]. 11. Further, in this case, 1/3 deduction could not be made. Receipt of pension, family pension, benefit of appointment on compassionate ground have no correlation with the road accident. W hatever might be the cause of death, these benefits are payable. So, there cannot be pecuniary advantages to be deducted from income. In this respect, the learned counsel cited VIMAL KANWAR & OTHERS Vs. KISHORE DAN & OTHERS [2013 (1) TN MAC 641 (SC)]. 12. W hatever might be the cause of death, these benefits are payable. So, there cannot be pecuniary advantages to be deducted from income. In this respect, the learned counsel cited VIMAL KANWAR & OTHERS Vs. KISHORE DAN & OTHERS [2013 (1) TN MAC 641 (SC)]. 12. The learned counsel further contended that under other items of compensation reasonable sums alone were granted. During the pendency of the appeal, the injured also died in unconscious stage itself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, actually what was granted itself is very less. Consideration: 13. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, scanned the entire materials on record, perused the impugned award of the Tribunal and the various decisions cited. Tractor or Trailer: 14. On 9.3.2006, at about 10.30 a.m., on the Namakkal- Thuraiyur Road, near Koolipatty, when Karunanithi came driven his TVS-50 bike, the road accident took place. Admittedly, in this accident, the involvement of the Tractor cum Trailer has not been disputed. The Tractor alone has been insured with the appellant and on the date of accident, the insurance was also in force. 15. Ex.P1-F.I.R., has been lodged against the driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailer. P.W.2-Muthusamy, VAO, eyewitness, confirmed that the Tractor had hit the injured. In Ex.P4, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, it has been mentioned that there was damage to the front portion of the Tractor. After investigation, the police charge-sheeted the said driver.(See Ex.P6). In the Judicial Magistrate's Court, he had admitted the offence. He was convicted and fined. (See Ex.P7 Criminal Court Judgment). As against this positive evidence, there is no contra evidence from the contesting Insurance Company. Thus, it is clear that the Tractor had hit against the injured. Further, even for an argument sake, if the Trailer had hit against the injured inasmuch as the Tractor had been insured with the Insurance Company and that has pulled the Trailer, the Company is liable. Injuries and Disability: 16. On 9.3.2007, in the accident, Karunanithi sustained serious head injuries (See Ex.P2 Wound certificate). He lost his consciousness. He was treated in Aravind Hospital, Namakkal. P.W.4, Dr.Mani conducted surgery. There was major damage to his brain. P.W.3, Dr.Palaniappan, Neuro Surgeon, also treated him. (See Ex.P8 discharge summary). The condition of the injured became very precarious. Completely he was in coma stage. Practically, he was a dead man on bed with life saving apparatus. He lost his consciousness. He was treated in Aravind Hospital, Namakkal. P.W.4, Dr.Mani conducted surgery. There was major damage to his brain. P.W.3, Dr.Palaniappan, Neuro Surgeon, also treated him. (See Ex.P8 discharge summary). The condition of the injured became very precarious. Completely he was in coma stage. Practically, he was a dead man on bed with life saving apparatus. He was in a vegetable stage. He could not take anything by himself. He was medically fed. In the circumstances, P.W.3 determined his disability at 85%. (See Ex.P28 Disability certificate). It is pertinent to note that he did not regain his consciousness at all. That is how before the Tribunal on his behalf, his wife Thangaponnu deposed herself as P.W.1 and during the pendency of this appeal, he has also passed away. There is nothing to denounce the said rate of disability. The evidence shows that although it is an injury case, really it is a fatal case though the death had taken place subsequently. The reality of the situation cannot be lost sight of. Just compensation : 17. The plight of the road accident victims is pitiable. They undergo untold miseries. They have to be compensated in terms of money to tide over from the crisis. 18. It is the statutory duty of the Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act to grant just compensation to the road accident victims. In doing so, in addition to the principles ingrained in the statute, they can also take into account the common law principles of Law of Torts developed in long course of time. 19. The Tribunals must make endeavour to put back the victims as nearly as possible to the position they were, when the accident took place. 20. In this connection, in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [2009 (6) SCC 121 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "16.... "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. 17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. 17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision-making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation." 21. On 1.7.2013, in Civil Appeal Nos.4816-4817 of 2013 [S.MANICKAM Vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.,], the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the statutory obligation of the Claims Tribunals and the High Courts to award 'just compensation' to the road accident victims and observed as under:-"12) In matters of determination of compensation, particularly, under the Motor Vehicles Act, both the tribunals and the High Courts are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is true that determination of “just compensation” cannot be equated to a bonanza. On the other hand, the concept of “just compensation” suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and the courts. We hold that the determination of quantum in motor accidents cases and compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 must be liberal since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales. The adjudicating authority, while determining the quantum of compensation, has to take note of the sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. while computing compensation, the approach of the tribunal or a court has to be broad based and sometimes it would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any precise formula to determine the quantum of compensation." 22. Now keeping the above broad basic principles in our view, let us proceed to determine the just compensation payable in this case. Income: 23. Late Karunanithi was born on 25.9.1950. Now keeping the above broad basic principles in our view, let us proceed to determine the just compensation payable in this case. Income: 23. Late Karunanithi was born on 25.9.1950. At the time of accident, he was 56 years old and was working as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. As per his Pay Certificate Ex.P25, dated 23.5.2006, his then gross monthly salary was Rs.12,908/-. There was no statutory deductions. In view of his precarious health condition, he was medically invalidated on 20.12.2006 (See Exs.P26 and P27). The pay scales of the Government servants were revised by the Sixth Pay Commission with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. The date of accident was on 9.3.2006. The evidence of P.W.5, Selvaraj, a Government Official discloses that as per the revised scale of pay, had he not been medically invalidated, his revised monthly salary would have been Rs.19,089/-. However, the Tribunal took only Rs.14,000/- p.m. Had Karunanithi served his full years of service, he would be entitled to 3% per year as annual increment. 24. As per SARLA VERMA (supra), loss of future income has to be compensated at certain percentage based on certain age group of the deceased with a ceiling of 50 years. However, a three-Judge Bench in RAJESH & OTHERS Vs. RAJBIR SINGH & OTHERS [2013 (3) CTC 883] , extended this benefit to persons in the age group of 50-60 years to the extent of 15% of their last known income. In this case, the injured was then 56 years old. In the special circumstances of the case, almost it is a death case. Therefore, as per the decision in RAJESH ( supra) even 15 % of his last drawn salary have to be added. Thus, we are not to sustain the arguments of the appellant that Rs.14,000/- p.m. is excessive. Deductions: 25. The injured was medically invalidated. On that ground he was prematurely retired. P.W.1 is now a widow. In her evidence, she admits that she receives Rs.7,500/- per month as pension. They are having four sons. She also admits that they have applied for appointment on compassionate ground. But, there is no material to show that in fact any one of her son has been appointed on compassionate ground. 26. P.W.1 is now a widow. In her evidence, she admits that she receives Rs.7,500/- per month as pension. They are having four sons. She also admits that they have applied for appointment on compassionate ground. But, there is no material to show that in fact any one of her son has been appointed on compassionate ground. 26. The question is, whether receipt of pension by an medically invalidated employee during his life time, and after him receipt of family pension by his widow and accrual of benefit due to appointment on compassionate ground are to be deducted from the income of Karunanithi, then injured, now the deceased. 27. In VIMAL KANWAR & OTHERS Vs. KISHORE DAN & OTHERS [2013 (1) TN MAC 641 (SC)] as regards the pension, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 19. The first issue is “whether Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.” The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 . In the said case, this Court held that Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a “pecuniary advantage” receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court: “35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage” liable for deduction. W hen we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.” 28. As regards receipt of salary on account of appointment on compassionate ground, in VIMAL KANWAR's (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “20. The second issue is “whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.” “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependents may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act”. 29. Thus, there shall not be any deduction on account of receipt of family pension or receipt of any salary due to appointment on compassionate ground. 30. 29. Thus, there shall not be any deduction on account of receipt of family pension or receipt of any salary due to appointment on compassionate ground. 30. To live and earn, a person has to spend a part of his income. So a part of income, at certain rate has to be deducted from the income of the person, towards his pleasure and other expenses. In case, if he is married, it is 1/3rd of his income, if he is a bachelor, the rate varies. This deduction arises only in death/fatal cases. In injury cases, this deduction shall not be made. 31. In the special circumstances of the case, i.e., as the injured was in coma stage and he was only in a vegetable stage, almost a dead man on bed with only life in his body, the Tribunal almost treated this case a death case. But, taking into account the precarious position of the injured, who has become irrecoverable, his family has to spend a lot to keep him alive, yet they could not because during the pendency of the appeal, he breathed his last. Thus, in view of the special circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not make 1/3rd deduction in this injury case. In view of the special circumstances of the case, it is acceptable. 32. No doubt, income for the purpose of assessment of compensation means 'actual salary' that is to say, 'gross salary' less 'income tax'. As per Section 192(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there is presumption that the employer has deducted tax at source (TDS). It is for those who state otherwise to establish it. In this case, as regards this kind of deduction, nothing was stated by the appellant. Further, there are no relevant material or data to consider it. 33. First of all, it should have been established that the injured was an 'assessee' under the Income-tax Act. Further, there are many statutory deductions, standard deductions and certain part of income do not form part of total income. In this country, tax evasion is punishable, but not tax avoidance. There are many tax concessions. The assessee himself would have availed of many schemes to keep him out of the taxable limit. In other words, taken steps to avoid payment of tax. In this country, tax evasion is punishable, but not tax avoidance. There are many tax concessions. The assessee himself would have availed of many schemes to keep him out of the taxable limit. In other words, taken steps to avoid payment of tax. Further, considering the extent of monthly salary applying the standard deduction, we have second thought whether, the injured would have been within taxable limit. In the circumstances, in this pathetic case, there shall not be any deduction towards payment of income-tax. Multiplier 34. The Tribunal adopted multiplier method. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly did so. At the time of accident, the injured was 56 years old. The Tribunal took the multiplier 9' and calculated it fully. In other words, even beyond 58 years, that would be his normal age of retirement, had he not been medically invalidated before that. As we have elaborately seen that in view of the special circumstances of this case, the Tribunal given full effect and it did not reduce the multiplier after his 58 years. Really, in this case that alone will result in arriving at 'just compensation'. 35. It is pertinent to note that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.MANICKAM (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the need for the Tribunals to be liberal in determining the compensation since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of the appellant to have split multiplier cannot be accepted. Quantification : 36. In view of the fore goings, the item of compensation based on the income of the first respondent, need no interference. The injured till his death battled for his life, he would have undergone lot of pain and sufferings and much mental agony. To keep him alive, the medical expenses would have been much more. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,72,000/- towards medical expenses. It is reimbursement of medical bills. 37. Towards future medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. The accident was on 09.03.2006. The award was passed on 23.12.2009. This appeal was preferred in 2010. In 2011, the injured has passed away. Between 23.12.2009 and 2011, the injured has been kept alive. During this period, huge amount had been spent towards his medical expenses. 37. Towards future medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. The accident was on 09.03.2006. The award was passed on 23.12.2009. This appeal was preferred in 2010. In 2011, the injured has passed away. Between 23.12.2009 and 2011, the injured has been kept alive. During this period, huge amount had been spent towards his medical expenses. In the circumstances, we are not to disturb this Rs.1,00,000/-. 38. As regards nutritious food expenses and transportation charges reasonable amounts alone have been awarded. 39. No doubt, the injured was hospitalised for a considerable period till his death. Thus, compensation under the head 'attendant charges' becomes payable. But, we are not approving the method adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,08,000/- on the basis of Rs.1,000/- per month applying the multiplier 9'. The application of multiplier will not arise for ascertaining this amount. This item would be a lump sum amount, on daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis. Although, we are not subscribing to the method adopted by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not interfering with this Rs.1,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 40. Thus, we are concurring with the quantum of compensation, namely, Rs.22,16,400/- arrived at by the Tribunal. Driving Licence 41. The accident was on 09.03.2006. The Tractor was driven by one Sivakumar. He had Learner's Licence (see Ex.R2). Its period was from 19.08.2005 to 18.02.2006. Thus, on the date of accident, namely, 09.03.2006, it was expired. Of course, subsequently, he got the Licence (see Ex.R.8). 42. The evidence of R.W.2, the official from Regional Transport Office, Namakkal shows that on the date of accident, the driver Sivakumar had only expired Learner's Licence. In other words, he had no licence. But, it is not established that he was disqualified from holding a valid driving licence. The vehicle owner/second respondent ought not to have placed the vehicle in the possession of such a person. But, there is no evidence that he has wilfully, knowingfully well placed the vehicle with Sivakumar. 43. The fact remains that at the time of accident, there was no valid licence to drive the vehicle to the said driver. Now the question is whether on that ground the appellant could avoid its statutory liability. 44. The claimants are not wrong doers. They are third parties. They are victims of road accident. 43. The fact remains that at the time of accident, there was no valid licence to drive the vehicle to the said driver. Now the question is whether on that ground the appellant could avoid its statutory liability. 44. The claimants are not wrong doers. They are third parties. They are victims of road accident. At the time of accident, there was valid insurance coverage for the offending vehicle. For the violation of policy terms, third parties shall not be penalised. The vehicle owner is bound to pay them the compensation amount and statutorily the insurer is bound to indemnify him. Otherwise, the claimants will be left with only a paper decree. However, enforcing the contract of insurance, the insurer is entitled to recourse to the insured. That is how, protecting the interest of the road accident victims and also for enforcing the contractual terms by the insurer as against the insured, the concept of 'pay and recover' has been conceived by the higher Courts and it has come to stay. 45. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS. G.MOHD. VANI AND OTHERS ( 2004 ACJ 1424 ) and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., VS. CANDINGEDDAWA AND OTHERS ( 2005 ACJ 40 ) , wherein it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company after paying the compensation amount would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 46. In JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. BALA JAIN AND OTHERS [2011 (7) MLJ 833 (SC), a minor who had no licence to drive took the motor cycle and due to his rash driving, the accident took place. W hen the claimants sought for compensation, the insurance company sought to avoid its liability on the ground that the rider has no driving licence at all and there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “11. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it was Jatin, who came from behind on the motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The responsibility in causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of Jatin. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “11. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it was Jatin, who came from behind on the motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The responsibility in causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of Jatin. However, since Jatin was a minor and it was the responsibility of the Petitioner to ensure that his motorcycle was not misused and that too by a minor who had no licence to drive the same, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal quite rightly saddled the liability for payment of compensation on the petitioner and, accordingly, directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount to the awardees and, thereafter, to recover the same from the Petitioner. The said question has been duly considered by the Tribunal and was correctly decided. The High Court rightly chose not to interfere with the same”. 47. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for invocation of the doctrine of 'pay and recover'. Net Result: 48. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is upheld. The appellant, shall deposit the entire award amount less amount already deposited, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After such deposit, the appellant is entitled to recover the said amount from the second respondent. For this purpose, the appellant need not file a separate suit. It can levy execution in a competent court based on the directions contained in this judgment. Out of the deposited amount, respondents 3 to 7 shall be paid equally, less amount, if any already withdrawn by them. No costs. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.