Judgment : 1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the finding on negligence, liability and quantum. 2. The Claimant, P.Subramani, aged 25 years, Crane Operator, earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, met with an accident on 23.10.2002. The Neyveli Thermal Police, registered a case, in respect of the accident, in Crime No.279 of 2002, under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Because of the accident, the claimant suffered six grievous injuries, apart from multiple injuries, all over the body. The Doctor certified the disability at 35%. The Tribunal has taken the disability only at 10%. 3. Pointing out these aspects, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is exorbitant. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that, when the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards permanent disablement and for the consequent loss of earning capacity, the amount awarded at Rs.25,000/- towards the disfigurement is unsustainable. 3.1. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the details of injuries suffered. The claimant has suffered fracture in maxilla bone and he has taken treatment at Puducherry JIPMER Hospital. The Doctor himself has stated that the disfigurement is not apparently ugly, but it remains invisible / very light. Considering the evidence given by the Doctor, the disfigurement is awarded only at Rs.15,000/-and not at Rs.25,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to justify the contention that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, under other heads, are unreasonable. 4.1. Therefore, the total amount / quantum of compensation awarded, by the Tribunal, is reduced by Rs.10,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, when the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the two-wheeler (Yamaha) driver did not have a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company should have been given liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the motor cycle. 5.1. The discussions, in the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, reveal that the Tribunal has taken care of two aspects, i.e., (a) the Insurance Company has given notice to the owner to produce documents and despite notice, having been served upon them and acknowledged, the owner has not chosen to produce the driving licence, either before the Insurance Company or before the Court; (b) when the owner was served with notice by the Court, he has not chosen to appear before the Court. 5.2. 5.2. Therefore, the contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence must be true. The Tribunal, even after extensive discussion, has merely stated that it is doubtful as to whether the driver of the motor cycle had a valid driving licence or not. In fact, the Tribunal has gone to the extent of saying that, the Insurance Company should be given liberty to recover the amount from the owner, but no final conclusion has been arrived at and therefore, that part did not finds place in the operative portion of the judgment. Pointing out these discrepancies, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the right to recover the compensation from the owner must be provided to the Insurance Company. 5.3. As the circumstances discussed above clearly go to show that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, the Insurance Company, after satisfying the award, is given liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the motor cycle. 6. So far as the negligence is concerned, the finding on negligence by the Tribunal is justified, in view of the fact that the complaint has been laid only against the driver of the motor cycle. After investigation, the Police have also laid final report only as against him. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the negligence is not on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. Therefore, the finding, on negligence, does not require any interference. 7. Except with the modification in the quantum of compensation being reduced from Rs.75,600/- to Rs.65,600/-, and the right given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount paid from the owner of the vehicle, in all other respects, especially, the finding on negligence, the Appeal is dismissed. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above. No costs. 8. It is represented that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.75,600/-along with interest at 7.5% per annum. In view of the order modified now, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw Rs.65,600/-, along with proportionate interest, and the balance would be withdrawn by the appellant / Insurance Company.