Judgment 1. Submissions at the bar were heard in detail and today the appeal is listed for final orders. 2. The appeal was preferred against the Judgment and Award in Claim Petition No.508 of 2007, dt.9.6.2010 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur whereby compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- payable jointly and severally by respondent nos. 1 and 3 on one hand as well as respondent nos. 2 and 4 on the other hand in 50 : 50 proportion to the claimant with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation inclusive of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The facts which are stated are as under: The claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- on the ground that the claimant, who was B.E. in Chemical Engineering and who was employed by Star Orchem International Pvt. Ltd. situated at M.I.D.C., Butibori, Nagpur, earning a sum of Rs.9,500/- p.m. was returning from his Company at M.I.D.C., Butibori to Nagpur with seven co-employees by Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH 31 Z-2621 (vehicle provided by the Company). The said Tata Sumo was driven on Wardha road National Highway no.7 rashly and negligently at a very high speed. While the vehicle was nearing the petrol pump at Jamtha Fata, a truck bearing registration no.MH-31 CB-867, which was exiting from the petrol pump, dashed and collided with Tata Sumo vehicle. In the result, the claimant had suffered various injuries all over his body, particularly on the spinal cord as well as vertebral column. The claimant was operated by Dr. Lokendra Singh and had to remain in hospital as an indoor patient during the period between 17.1.2007 to 5.2.2007. The claimant, due to severe injuries suffered by him as a result of motor vehicle accident, became permanently paralysed and disabled. According to the learned Counsel for the claimant, Higna Police had registered crime no.11 of 2007 against drivers of both the vehicles Tata Sumo well as truck referred above for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 427 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 184, 119 (R) r/w. Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to the learned Counsel for the claimant, Higna Police had registered crime no.11 of 2007 against drivers of both the vehicles Tata Sumo well as truck referred above for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 427 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 184, 119 (R) r/w. Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the claimant, the victim/claimant was a young engineer, aged about 22 years and had just started his life with prospects of dreams and anticipations for happy future life. His dreams were shattered and as he became permanently disabled even to follow his ordinary daily pursuits like passing urine and stool etc. on his own, he was required to spend his remaining life on wheel chair and became jobless. He also lost prospects of enjoyment in his life as now he could not marry in life. He was the only earning member of his family having younger brother and sister and aged parents. Thus, his family life was ruined. Under these circumstances, the claimant had claimed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as compensation. The learned Member of the Tribunal, who examined the evidence led before it, found that Tata Sumo bearing registration no.MH-31 Z-2621 and Truck bearing registration no.MH-31 CB-867 both offending motor vehicles which collided with each other due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles respectively, equally contributed to the accident as a result of negligence on their part. In the result, therefore, the owner, the driver and the insurer of both the vehicles were equally held responsible to share compensation on 50-50 % basis along with 7.5 % interest thereupon from the date of petition till realisation. The learned Member of the Tribunal restricted the Award to the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- although a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- was claimed. As, according to the learned Member, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- required to be awarded as just and reasonable compensation on the basis that yearly income of the claimant was considered as Rs.90,000/- assuming that his monthly earning of Rs.7,500/- p.m. only. The learned Member also considered loss of future income by applying multiplier 17 to the yearly income of Rs.90,000/- only. 4. The learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that considering the permanent disability of the claimant and his inability to spend ordinarily comfortable life, medical treatment, medicines etc. The learned Member also considered loss of future income by applying multiplier 17 to the yearly income of Rs.90,000/- only. 4. The learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that considering the permanent disability of the claimant and his inability to spend ordinarily comfortable life, medical treatment, medicines etc. and also non-pecuniary damages on account of frustration in life, disappoint, unhappiness, discomfort and inconvenience and loss of amenities in life bearing in mind the permanent disability and existence of the claimant on the wheel chair, the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- which was awarded was just and reasonable amount and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the amount awarded is excessive. According to Mr.D.N.Kukday, learned Counsel for the appellant, Tata Sumo vehicle was insured in the name of respondent no.4 under the liability only policy for a private car and use of the said vehicle for hire or reward was prohibited under the policy. This contention is met by the learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant on the ground that it was open for the insurer/appellant – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to plead and prove the fact alleging that the policy was limited as “liability only” policy. Regarding the grievance of the appellant of alleged breach of Insurance Policy, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent/claimant that the appellant should pay the compensation first and discharge its liability towards claimant and then it may recover compensation paid from the owner of the offending vehicle by raising such grievance before the Tribunal. But, considering the nature of claim, the motor vehicle accident and the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation was just and reasonable and minimum under the circumstances considering the fact that the victim would now need medical treatment continuously as also attendant, special diet etc. 6. Having considered the submissions at the bar, therefore, and considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered fracture at Dorsal 8 Vertebra with paraplegia which, according to medical science, is 80% permanent disability, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded was excessive in any respect. No grievance in this regard was made by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent no.2) and I am informed that respondent no.2 has already discharged part of its responsibility by making payment of compensation to the claimant. No grievance in this regard was made by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent no.2) and I am informed that respondent no.2 has already discharged part of its responsibility by making payment of compensation to the claimant. That being so, the appellant can also discharge its responsibility by making payment of compensation to the claimant and if at all, according to it, owner of the offending motor vehicle was responsible for breach of Insurance policy, it is open for the appellant to recover the compensation amount paid for the owner/driver of the offending motor vehicle not by any separate or independent proceedings, but in the same proceedings by making appropriate application for this purpose to the learned Member of the Tribunal. In the result, therefore, on merits, I do not find any valid and legal reason to disturb the impugned judgment and Award. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The amount deposited in this Court, if any, be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant.