Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1573 of 2008, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.217 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Periyakulam. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.217 of 2006, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 04.06.2006 at about 06.00 p.m., was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-72A-4046, on the Theni to Periakulam road, from west towards south, on the left of the road, the 1strespondents auto bearing registration No.TN-60C-6067, coming from west towards south, on the same road and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motor cycle from behind and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner sustained fracture of bone above his heel on right leg and lacerated wound on his right thigh and also sustained injuries all over his body. He was immediately admitted at Theni Government Hospital, wherein he received treatment as an inpatient from 04.06.2006 to 12.06.2006 and subsequently received treatment at private hospitals as an outpatient prior to the accident, the petitioner was running a shop in the name and style of "Divya Broiler Chickens" and Miranda line, G.H. Road and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. After the accident, the petitioner is not able to stand and do his work and he is also not able to sit cross legged. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said auto involved in the accident. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove that the 1st respondent's auto had been insured with them, at the time of accident and that the driver of the auto had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove that the 1st respondent's auto had been insured with them, at the time of accident and that the driver of the auto had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was submitted that the auto driver had driven the auto in a careful and cautious manner, observing the traffic rules and regulations and that the motor cyclist, who was riding his vehicle on the extreme right of the road had suddenly and negligently tried to take his vehicle across the road and that the auto driver on seeing this had stopped his vehicle but inspite of it, the auto had dashed against the motor cycle. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries. It was submitted that as the owner of the motor cycle had not been added as a necessary party in the claim, it renders the claim as not maintainable. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner was also not admitted. It was submitted the claim was excessive. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle?; (2) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? Is so what is the quantum? 5. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 13.11.2001; Ex.P2-copy of accident register; Ex.P3-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P4-copy of policy; Ex.P5-registration certificate of firm; Ex.P6- medical bills; Ex.P7-disability certificate; Ex.P8-x rays. On the side of the respondents one witnesses was examined and one document n namely the certificate issued by RTO Officer was marked as Ex.R1. 6. PW.1, had adduced evidence that on 04.06.2000, at about 06.00 p.m., when he was proceeding on his "Hero Pouch " motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-72A-4046, on the Theni to Periyakulam road, from west towards south, the 1st respondent's auto bearing registration No.TN-60C-6067, coming from west towards south on the same road and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed behind his motor cycle and caused the accident. He deposed that he sustained fractures in his body and received treatment from 04.06.2006 to 12.06.2006 at Theni Government Hospital, as an inpatient and subsequently received treatment at Private Hospitals and that he is not able to do work as he used to do before the accident. In support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P5. On cross examination, he had submitted that he is still running his Broiler shop. 7. PW.2, Sachithanantham had adduced evidence that on 13.12.2007 he had taken X rays on the petitioner and observed that three of the fractured fingers in the petitioners left foot, have not joined in a proper manner and that the disability assessed towards pain and suffering was 3%. He deposed that as the movement of the petitioners right heel have become restricted, he had assessed the disability sustained on this count as 12%. PW.2 deposed that the total disability sustained by the petitioner was 28% and in support of his evidence, he had marked ex.P7 the disability certificate and Ex.P8 x rays. 8. RW.1, Arunachalam of the 2nd respondents firm had adduced evidence that the driver of the 1st respondents auto did not have a valid driving licence and that the RTO Officer had issued a certificate confirming this point and had marked Ex.R1, the certificate issued by the RTO Officer. On cross examination, he had admitted that he had not stated that the driver of the auto did not have a valid licence on the day of the accident and that it is possible for the driver of the auto to obtain a driving licence from other Regional Transport Offices situated in Tamil Nadu. 9. The Tribunal on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondents auto. The Tribunal, on opining that the disability sustained by the petitioner was 20% awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of disability; Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.1,600/-towards loss of income sustained by the petitioner for eight days during medical treatment period; Rs.250/-towards transport expenses; Rs.1,000/- towards nutrition. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.32,850/-as compensation to the petitioner. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.32,850/-as compensation to the petitioner. The tribunal, on considering that the 1st respondents auto driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident as per Exs.P3 and R1 and observing that the 1st respondent's auto had been covered under a policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent, directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said compensation and then initiate recovery proceedings against the 1st respondent. The Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum of Rs.32,850/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date of deposit within two months from the date of its order. 10. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent has preferred The present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the lower Court has failed to note that the appellant insurance company has already let in evidence to discharge the onus to prove that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. Hence, the appellant had discharged the burden to prove that the owner had committed a breach of policy condition in allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person who did not have a valid license at the time of accident. It was contended that the lower Court has failed to note that it is settled law that the mere making of documents without proving the contents thereof cannot constitute conclusive proof of the contents or truth of such documents marked. It was pointed out that the Madras High Court in "N. Sathidevi Vs V. Giridharan" dated 26.04.2002, in C.M.A.No.614 of 1995 has held that mere production of proceedings before the Criminal Court that the driver pleaded guilty for causing an accident without independently establishing the use of the vehicle in causing the accident would not be sufficient evidence to fasten liability on the owner and insurer of the vehicle in a claim for compensation. It was contended that the lower Court failed to note that the doctor who examined and issued the wound and disability certificate only deposed that the injured was having 28% disability but has not specifically and scientifically stated that such disability was permanent or partially permanent. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. 11. It was contended that the lower Court failed to note that the doctor who examined and issued the wound and disability certificate only deposed that the injured was having 28% disability but has not specifically and scientifically stated that such disability was permanent or partially permanent. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries and he had undergone treatment at two different hospitals as inpatient as well as outpatient. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of nutrition, transport, attender charges, disability, pain and suffering and loss of earning during medical treatment period. The learned counsel further submits that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Therefore, pay and recovery principle had been followed by the Tribunal. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any irregularity in the conclusions arrived at regarding liability and quantum of compensation on 12.11.2008, this Court had directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the award amount, with proportionate interest. Now, this directs the appellant to deposit the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant is at liberty to recover the said compensation amount, as per Tribunal order, after adopting necessary process. 13. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.217 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Periyakulam, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawal, if any, already made. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.217 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Court, Periyakulam, is confirmed, dated 28.03.2008, No costs.