Judgment 1. The appellant/second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2005, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him, in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 12.04.2004, at about 03.30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle to Nallur on the Nallur-Pennadam Main Road, the first respondent's mini door vehicle bearing registration No. TN 31 L1158, coming behind the petitioner from south to north on the same road, towards Nallur, driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries all over his body, including fracture on his left leg. He was admitted at Government Hospital, Vridhachalam and was referred to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore and Management Hospital, Cuddalore. At the time of accident, the petitioner was working as a Car driver and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN31 L1158. 3. The second respondent, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was submitted that the petitioner should prove the averments in the claim petition regarding age, income, and occupation of the petitioner and manner of the accident was also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioner had travelled in the first respondent's goods vehicle as a fare paying passenger and as such, as the policy conditions of insurance had been violated, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Is the first respondent responsible for the accident? and ii. Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for? 5. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely: i. Is the first respondent responsible for the accident? and ii. Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation as prayed for? 5. On the petitioner's side two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 namely Ex.P1-Copy of FIR, Ex.P2-Copy of M.V.I's report, Ex.P3-Copy of RC Book, Ex.P4-Copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.P5-Copy of Discharge Summary issued at Cuddalore Government Head Quarters Hospital to the petitioner, Ex.P6-X'ray, Ex.P7-Copy of Driving Licence, Ex.P8-Disability Certificate and Ex.P9-X'rays. On the respondents side one witness was examined as R.W.1 and one document namely the copy of driving licence of the first respondent's driver had been marked as Ex.R1. 6. On scrutiny of Exs.P1 and R1, it is seen that the petitioner had travelled as a passenger. But, no mention had been made to show that he had travelled as a fare paying passenger. On scrutiny of Ex.R1, it is seen that due to negligence of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle, he had driven the vehicle into a pit and caused the accident. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's vehicle driver. However, the Tribunal observed that the first respondent had violated the conditions of policy by permitting the petitioner to travel as a gratuitous passenger in his vehicle. However, the Tribunal, on observing that the first respondent's driver had a valid driving licence and that the vehicle was covered under a valid policy of insurance with the second respondent held that the second respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. But, permitted them to recover the same from the first respondent in the same proceedings. 7. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5, observed that the petitioner was aged 30 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the petitioner was Rs.3,000/- per month. 8. P.W.2 Dr. 7. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P5, observed that the petitioner was aged 30 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the petitioner, the Tribunal held that the notional income of the petitioner was Rs.3,000/- per month. 8. P.W.2 Dr. Palani had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and taken X'rays and observed that the fractured bone in his thigh had malunited and that the muscles in the petitioner's left fore-leg had become shrunk and consequently reduced in strength. He deposed that the bending and straight movements of his left knee joint had been restricted to 80 Degrees and that the upward and downward movements of his left knee joint had been restricted to 30 Degrees. He deposed that the petitioner would experience difficulty in sitting cross legged, squatting and would not be able to stand or walk for long duration of time. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained partial permanent disability of 42% and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P8 and P9. 9. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.84,000/- for disability, Rs.3,000/-for loss of income during medical treatment and convalescence period, Rs.25,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering, Rs.2,000/-for ambulance expenses and Rs.1,000/-for nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the first and second respondents to jointly and severally 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 payment of compensation, with costs, within a period of three months, from the date of it's order. 10. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal having found that the claimant was a passenger in the goods vehicle and that the case of the claimant being a third party was not true, erred in holding that the appellant may be directed to pay and recover. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Insurance policy bears no coverage for such passengers and hence there cannot be any direction to pay and recover. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the Insurance policy bears no coverage for such passengers and hence there cannot be any direction to pay and recover. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the Award passed as against the appellant. 12. Summons had been served on the claimant and in spite of it, he had not appeared before this Court. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass a final order on the basis of available documents. 13. On verifying the factual positions of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and on perusing the impugned Award, 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 Tribunal had given a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the said compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in the same proceedings, which is appropriate in the instant case. 14. This Court is of the further view that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries as per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the Doctor had assessed the disability at 42%. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded is reasonable. 15. As per the Court records, it is seen that the Insurance Company had already deposited the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon. Now, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.375 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam, dated 16.06.2009, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.