JUDGMENT 1. The Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the liability imposed upon the company. 2. One Senthilkumar @ Karuppusamy, aged 20 years, a Mason by avocation, earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, suffered an accident on 23.07.2006, and in respect of the injury sustained, he claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation. 3. The claim was resisted by the second respondent (before the Tribunal) / Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the van was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, at the time of accident, and therefore, as there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. In order to substantiate the contentions raised in the counter, the Insurance Company has examined R.W.1, Selvakumar from the Office of the Road Transport, Tiruppur. He has produced the Register, for issue of driving licence. He has stated, in his evidence, that the driver was having the licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicles, and he did not possess a badge to drive the public transport vehicles. His evidence also confirms the fact that Minidor Auto is a public transport vehicle and it requires a badge if it is to be an effective driving licence. 5. It is an admitted case that the driver did not have a badge for driving the Minidor auto. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is liable to be set-aside. 5.1. However, as per the decisions reported in 2012 ACJ 1235 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. V.Vijayakumar and Others) and (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases (S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,) the Insurance Company would have the right and liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle, after paying the compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified, directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, but with liberty to recover it from the owner. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also commented upon the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and claimed it as excessive. 6.1. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the nature of injury, period of treatment, nature of disability and the impact of disability upon the earning capacity of the claimant. 6.2. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also commented upon the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and claimed it as excessive. 6.1. In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to look into the nature of injury, period of treatment, nature of disability and the impact of disability upon the earning capacity of the claimant. 6.2. P.W.2, Dr.Senthilkumar, an Ortho Surgeon, working in CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, has been examined to speak about the disability. Ex.A-8-Disability Certificate issued by the Doctor reveals that the percentage of disability is estimated at 39.17%. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 30%. 6.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the grant of compensation at Rs.1,85,500/-, which includes the loss of earning power at Rs.1,62,800/-, is excessive and that the Tribunal ought not to have adopted the multiplier method of quantification. 6.4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that, when the Doctor has assessed the disability at 35%, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the disability at 30%, without assigning any reason, whatsoever. 6.5. This contention of the learned counsel for the claimant merits acceptance. But, at the same time, even for the disability of 39.17%, the multiplier method of quantification ought not to have been adopted, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, with regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the entire amount of compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, needs re-working. 6.6. P.W.2, Dr.Senthilkumar, has described the disability in the following words:- “There was restriction in the movements of left shoulder, reduced chest expansion and breath holding time and decreased air entry, reduced muscle power, muscle tone and jerk in right upper and lower limbs due to the head injury, muscle wasting at left arm, mal union of ribs and loss of co-ordination” 6.7. All these disabilities together have been worked out at 39.17%. Therefore, the disability has to be taken at 39.17% only as estimated by the Doctor and not at 30%. Therefore, the compensation on disability is awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability and in respect of 39% diability, the compensation is Rs.78,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 39). 6.8. When there had been difficulty in breathing and reduced air supply to the lungs, the difficulty would have been considerable for the claimant. Therefore, the compensation on disability is awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability and in respect of 39% diability, the compensation is Rs.78,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 39). 6.8. When there had been difficulty in breathing and reduced air supply to the lungs, the difficulty would have been considerable for the claimant. Therefore, pain and sufferings is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-; extra nourishment is awarded at Rs.10,000/-; Transport expenses is awarded at Rs.10,000/- and loss of earnings, at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, for four months, is awarded at Rs.20,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 4); loss of enjoyment of amenities is awarded at Rs.30,000/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable would be Rs.1,73,000/-. 7. In the result, to the extent indicated above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs.1,85,500/- to Rs.1,73,000/-. The Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant, but with liberty to recover it from the owner. No costs. 8. It is represented that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount of compensation. The claimant / first respondent herein would be entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,73,000/-, along with proportionate interest and cost, and the balance would be payable to the Insurance Company / appellant.