Judgment :- 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the appeal in CMA(MD).No.1050 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Valliyoor. 2. The Minor petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2007, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 01.07.2006, at about 09.00 a.m., when the petitioner was walking on the main road, after the Marankulam-Sappathi Main road, on the left side of the road from east towards west, the 1st respondents "TVS XL" motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-72R-8659, coming on the same road and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and caused the accident. In the impact, the minor petitioner sustained fractures of the bone in her right knee and was admitted at a Private Hospital at Nagercoil and received treatment, as an inpatient, from 01.07.2006 to 10.07.2006. Due to the fractures sustained by her, the minor petitioner is not able to stand or walk properly and is unable to sit down or climb up or down the stairs. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration Nio.TN-72R-8659. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has adduced evidence that the accident had occurred only because of the negligence of the petitioner as she had tried to turn across the road, without noticing the respondents vehicle coming on the road. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's motor cycle rider did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such the 2nd respondent cannot be liable to pay compensation. The averments in the claim regarding injuries sustained by petitioner was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st respondent's motor cycle?; Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation and if so, who is liable to pay compensation? 5. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st respondent's motor cycle?; Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation and if so, who is liable to pay compensation? 5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P8 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-copy of wound certificate; Ex.P3-copy of charge sheet; Ex.P4-copy of judgment; Ex.P5-medical prescriptions; Ex.P6-medical bills; Ex.P7-disability certificate; Ex.P8-X rays. On the side of the respondents, two witness were examined and five documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R5 namely: Ex.R1-Notice sent to 1st respondent; Ex.R2-copy of notice sent to 2nd respondent; Exs.R3 and R4-acknowledgment cards; Ex.R5-copy of policy. 6. The father of the minor petitioner namely Sivaperumal Nadar, was examined as PW.1. PW.1 had adduced evidence that on 01.07.2006, at about 09.00 a.m., when his daughter, who had come along with him to the garden to pluck flowers, was returning home on the main road, from east towards west, the 1st respondent's motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-72R-8659, coming in the same direction, from behind her and ridden at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its rider had dashed against his daughter. He deposed that the accident had been caused only the negligent and rash riding of the 1st respondent's vehicle rider. 7. On scrutiny of Ex.P1-F.I.R, it is seen that the complaint had been filed as against Velmurugan, the rider of the 1st respondent's motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-72R-8659. It is seen that the charge sheet has also been filed against him as per Ex.P3. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, judgment of Criminal Court, it is seen that the said Velmurugan had admitted his guilt and paid the fine. Hence, the tribunal on scrutiny the documentary evidence and on observing that no documentary oral evidence had been let in to prove that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st respondent's vehicle. 8. Hence, the tribunal on scrutiny the documentary evidence and on observing that no documentary oral evidence had been let in to prove that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the 1st respondent's vehicle. 8. PW.1, had further adduced evidence that due to the fractures sustained by his daughter in the bones of her right knee, she had been admitted at a Private Hospital and took treatment as an inpatient from 01.07.2006 to 10.07.2006 and that subsequently she had take treatment as an outpatient. He deposed that after the accident, his daughter is not able to do any work as she used to do before the accident and that she is unable to stand, walk or stretch her legs while sitting. He deposed that a surgery was conducted and that steel plates and screws were fixed in the fractured area of bone. 9. PW.2, Doctor Ramaguru had adduced evidence that he had examined the minor petitioner namely Siva Renuka on 07.12.2007 and observed that the fractured bone in her right knee had not joined in a proper manner and that the movements of her heel and right hip had become restricted. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 30% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked as Ex.P8, disability certificate and Ex.P9- x rays. 10. RW.1, Jeevanantham, the Junior Assistant in the Regional Transport Office, Nagercoil, adduced evidence that no driving licence had been issued by their office to the rider of the 1st respondent's motor cycle namely Velmurugan. 11. RW.1, Velu, the Assistant Manager, of the 2nd respondents firm had adduced evidence that as the rider of the 1st respondent's firm did not possess a driving licence at the time of accident, his firm cannot be held liable to pay compensation and in support of his contentions, he had marked as ex.P5-copy of policy. 12. The Tribunal on observing that the rider of the 1st respondent's vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident, held the 1st respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 12. The Tribunal on observing that the rider of the 1st respondent's vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident, held the 1st respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the tribunal, on observing that the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident directed the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent to pay the assessed compensation to the petitioner and recover it subsequently from the 1st respondent. 13. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under the head of transport expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.20,000/-towards medical expenses as per exhibits marked as P5 and P6; Rs.30,000/- towards disability of 30% and Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering. In total, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.63,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and directed the 2nd 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 payment of compensation within one month from the date of its order. After such deposit was made, the 2nd respondent was permitted by the tribunal to recover the same from the 1st respondent. 14. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nagercoil, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal ought to have passed the award only as against the owner since he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person, who has no licence on the date of accident. It was contended that the tribunal erred in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation at the first instance and to recover the same from the owner. It was also contended that the award passed in excessive and without any basis. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. 15. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the motor cyclist had driven the TVS-50 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor claimant, who was studying in the 2nd standard at the time of accident. In the said accident, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on her right leg. 15. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the motor cyclist had driven the TVS-50 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor claimant, who was studying in the 2nd standard at the time of accident. In the said accident, the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on her right leg. Immediately, she was admitted at a private hospital for medical treatment, wherein she underwent treatment from 01.07.1996 to 10.07.2006. During the medical treatment period, she had undergone a surgical operation on her right leg and a steel plate and screws were fixed in the operated area. The case has been registered against the rider of the motor cycle and he was punished before the Criminal Court. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The learned counsel further submits that the tribunal had not granted compensation for attender charges and further the tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of nutrition and transport. 16. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding quantum of compensation and liability since the claimant has sustained 30% disability and she had undergone a surgical operation on her right leg. Further, after payment of compensation by the appellant herein and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle since the rider of the vehicle did not have a driving licence at the time of accident. This Court confirms the pay and recovery order passed by the tribunal. As per Court records, it is seen that this Court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount with proportionate interests on 04.11.2009. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon as per tribunal order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 17. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon as per tribunal order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 17. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the Minor claimant's father to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, is confirmed, dated 17.11.2008. No costs.