JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1340 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2009, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 18.10.2008, at about 09.00 p.m., when the petitioner was walking from north towards south on the road situated to the east of the old bus stand market, the 1st respondent's motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-47S-5981, coming from behind him and driven by its rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner. In the impact, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and was admitted at Karur Amaravathi Hospital, wherein he received first aid. Subsequently, he took treatment at K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore, from 19.10.2008 to 27.10.2008, as an inpatient. The petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- prior to the accident, the petitioner was employed as a security grand at V.N.C company and earning Rs.3,775/-per month. As the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the accident, he is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation from the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-47S-5981. 3. The 2nd respondent in his counter has submitted that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the petitioner who had suddenly tried to cross the road. It was also contended that the 1st respondent had violated the conditions laid down in the insurance policy by permitting his son, who did not have a driving licence to ride the motor cycle and as such the 2nd respondent could not be held liable to pay any compensation. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries, medical expenses incurred and disability sustained were also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries, medical expenses incurred and disability sustained were also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The motor accident claims tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-57S-5981; (2) Did the 1st respondent violate the conditions laid down in the insurance policy?; If so, is the 2nd respondent not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and (3) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation which he is entitled to get?. 5. On the petitioners side, four witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-rough sketch; Ex.P4-charge sheet; Ex.P5-copy of judgment; Ex.P6-accident register; Ex.P7-medical report; ex.P8-hospital receipts; Exs.P9 and P10-medical receipts; Ex.P11-hospital receipts; Ex.P12-medical receipts; Ex.P13-ambulance charges; Ex.P14-disability certificate; Ex.P15-scan report; Ex.P16-scan photo; Ex.P17-disability certificate; Ex.P18-x rays. On the respondents side, three witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked as exhibits R1 to R9 namely: Ex.R1-lawyer's notice; Exs.R2 and R3-acknowledgment cards; Ex.R4-receipt for payment of fine; Ex.R5-copy of RC book; Ex.R6-copy of policy; Ex.R7-motor vehicle inspector's report; Ex.R8-copy of policy; Ex.R9-investigation report. 6. Pw.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by him in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P1-F.I.R Ex.P3-rough sketch; Ex.P5-charge sheet. 7. On the respondents side, it was argued that the accident had occurred only because the petitioner had suddenly crossed the road and that it was not possible for the rider of the two wheeler to drive his two wheeler at a high speed at the place of occurrence of accident as it was a farmer's market and a congested area. It was argued that the petitioner had dashed himself against the two wheeler. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, rough sketch, it is seen that the accident had occurred on the west side of the street and that the petitioner had followed the traffic rules and walked on the left side of the road. It was argued that the petitioner had dashed himself against the two wheeler. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, rough sketch, it is seen that the accident had occurred on the west side of the street and that the petitioner had followed the traffic rules and walked on the left side of the road. Though the width of the street had not been mentioned in the rough sketch, the Tribunal observed that it was wide enough and that if the motor cyclist had been careful in his riding, he could have easily passed the petitioner. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P4, charge sheet observed that the charge sheet had been filed as against the 1st respondent's son, Sugumar. On scrutiny of Ex.P5, it is seen that the said Sugumar had accepted his guilt before the criminal court and paid the fine. Hence, the Tribunal on scrutiny of evidence of PW.1 and the exhibits marked as P1, P3, P4 and P5 and on considering that neither the rider of the two wheeler nor any other independent witnesses had been examined by the respondents side to prove that the petitioner had been negligent held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the 1st respondent's motor cycle. 8. RW.1, the 1st respondent namely Manimaran, had adduced evidence that his son had a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle and that as it was lost, he was not able to produce it before the Court. He deposed that the notice sent by the 2nd respondent had been marked as Ex.R1 and that the acknowledgment cards for receipt of the notice had been marked as R2 and R3. He deposed that his son had paid a fine of Rs.1,500/-before the criminal court and that the receipt for payment of fine had been marked as ex.P4 and that the RC book and copy of policy had been marked as Ex.P5, 9. RW.2, Vijaya, RTO Officer, had adduced evidence that the rider of the motor cycle namely Sugumar had not produced his driving licence at the time of inspection of the motor cycle. 10. RW.2, Vijaya, RTO Officer, had adduced evidence that the rider of the motor cycle namely Sugumar had not produced his driving licence at the time of inspection of the motor cycle. 10. RW.3, the Administrative Officer of the 2nd respondents firm had adduced evidence that only persons who had valid driving licence are permitted to drive vehicles and that it driver of the vehicle who did not possess a valid driving licence drives the vehicle which is involved in the accident, the insurance company cannot be held responsible to pay the compensation and that on the investigation under taken by their investigation Officer, it was found that the said Sugumar did not have a valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.R1, notice sent by 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent and his son Sugumar asking them to produce the driving licence of the said Sugumar and on observing that the 1st respondent and his son had not sent any reply notice and on scrutiny of the motor vehicle Inspector's report i.e., Ex.R7, wherein it was stated that the rider of the 1st respondent's motorcycle, namely Sugumar did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the judgments made in two similar cases namely: 2010(1) TN MAC 65-Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Dindigul Vs.V.Chandran and anoter; and (2) 2010(1) TN MAC 486, the Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Tmt.P.Muthumani, held that as the 1st judgment had been given on 21.08.2009 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and that the 2nd judgment had been given by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 08.04.2010, held that the insurance company has to pay the compensation on behalf of the 1st respondent and recover the same from the 1st respondent. 11. PW.1, has further adduced evidence that he had sustained fractures of bone in his head and his tibia bone in his right leg had been fractured. He deposed that he had taken first aid at Karur Amaravathi Hospital and later on taken treatment at K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore, as an inpatient from 19.10.2008 to 27.10.2008 and that he had again spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He deposed that he had taken first aid at Karur Amaravathi Hospital and later on taken treatment at K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore, as an inpatient from 19.10.2008 to 27.10.2008 and that he had again spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He deposed that due to the injuries sustained on his head in the accident, he has developed partial permanent disability sustained and is not able to do any work as he used to do before the accident. In support of his evidence he had marked Exs.P2,P6,P7 and P13. 12. PW.3, Doctor Sekar, of K.G.Hospital, had adduced evidence that the discharge summary marked as Ex.P7 and the hospital receipts marked as Ex.P8, had been issued by their hospital. 13. PW.2, Dr.Mathivanan, the Neurologist had adduced evidence that the bone in the right skull of the petitioner had been fractured and that there was hemorrhage in the petitioners brain and that a surgery was conducted on 21.02.2009. He deposed that as the petitioner had sustained injuries in his brain, he has headache, nausea, pain in the back of his neck and loss of concentration in work. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 30% disability in the said accident and in support of his evidence he had marked as Ex.P14-disability certificate and Ex.P15-scan report and Ex.P16-scan photo. 14. PW.4, Dr. Rajendran, the Orthopedist had adduced evidence that the tibia bone in the petitioners right leg had been broken into pieces and that after treatment, the fractured bone had joined in an improper manner and that the muscles in the petitioners legs had shrunk and lost its strength. He deposed that the petitioner experiences pain while doing his everyday routine work and that he has difficulty in standing, walking and climbing up or down the stairs. He deposed that the petitioner has sustained 20% partial permanent disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P17-disability certificate and Ex.P18- x rays. 15. The Tribunal on holding that the petitioner had sustained 50% disability in the accident awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of disability. He deposed that the petitioner has sustained 20% partial permanent disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P17-disability certificate and Ex.P18- x rays. 15. The Tribunal on holding that the petitioner had sustained 50% disability in the accident awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of disability. Rs.10,000/- was awarded under the head of loss of income; Rs.2,66,500/-was awarded towards medical expenses as per exhibits P8 to P14; Rs.10,000/-was awarded towards future medical expenses and Rs.20,000/-was awarded a sum of Rs.4,06,500/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the 2nd respondent, on behalf of the 1st respondent, to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit, within two months from the date of its order. 16. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned tribunal appreciated the fact that the owner of the vehicle was called absent and set ex-parte but he was examined as RW.1 and he admitted that his son drove the two wheeler and has not produced the licence. It was pointed out that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW.2 and RW.3. It was contended that even though the Tribunal had categorically admitted the fact in the judgment that the driver of the two wheeler had no licence at the time of accident, the tribunal has erroneously ordered for pay and recovery. It was contended that the learned tribunal ought to have relied upon the judgment reported in 1983 ACJ page 625 and the judgment reported in 2010 (1) TN MAC page 65 and ought to have dismissed the claim petition as against the appellant insurance company. 17. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries in his brain and he had undergone surgical operation on his skull. The Neurologist had assessed the disability at 20%, since the claimant's right leg tibia bone were fractured into several pieces. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.2,66,500/-towards medical expenses. After considering the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses. Period of treatment as inpatient as well as out patient, the compensation awarded is not on the higher side. The claimant had spent a sum of Rs.2,66,500/-towards medical expenses. After considering the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses. Period of treatment as inpatient as well as out patient, the compensation awarded is not on the higher side. The claimant had been admitted at K.G.Hospital as inpatient for about 25 days. After the accident, he is unable to do his avocation. The claimant had marked 18 documents to substantiate the accident and compensation. 18. 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 said award. Further, this court further opines that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries on his head and on his right leg bone which was broken into several pieces. The medical expenses of a sum of Rs.2,66,500/- had been granted on the basis of medical bills. After, deducting medical expenses, this Court observes that the rest of the compensation granted has been given appropriately under the proper heads. 19. This Court directs the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after deducting earlier amount deposited by the appellant. The pay and recovery theory adopted by the tribunal is unaltered. 20. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, as fixed by the tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 21. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur, is confirmed, dated 23.08.2010. No costs.