Judgment 1. The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1305 of 2006, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2002, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 13.11.2001, at about 05.15 p.m, when the petitioner was travelling in the 2nd respondents mini bus bearing registration No.TN-74C-1184 from Karungal to the Monday market and when the bus was nearing Mananvilai, the driver of the bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the bus capsized. In the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries all over her body and was admitted at CSI hospital, at Neyyur, wherein she took treatment. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 50 years and was employed as a Coolie and earning Rs.3,000/-per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st , 2nd d and 3rd respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the mini bus bearing registration No.TN-74C-1184. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the 1st respondent had driver of the bus in a careful manner and observed all the traffic rules and regulations and that he had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was submitted that even in the 1st respondent driver being found guilty of negligence, only the insurer of the bus i.e., the 3rd respondent can be held liable to pay the compensation. It was submitted that though the bus had been covered under a valid permit to ply only from Karungal to Pallipadi, the bus was plied on 13.11.2001 between Karungal to Nagercoil , as per the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Government as the employees of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation were on strike for the period between 09.01.2001 to 21.11.2001 and as such no policy conditions had been violated. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim as against the 2nd respondent. 4. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim as against the 2nd respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner as well as the manner of accident and nature of injuries sustained by her. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the bus was operated under a valid permit. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and that these injuries have healed completely and that she had not sustained any permanent disability due to the injuries caused in the accident. It was submitted that the mini bus bearing registration No.TN-74C-1184 was not covered under a valid permit to ply on the Karungal-Monday market road. It was submitted that as more than 50 persons had travelled in the mini-bus, the 2nd respondent had violated the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance and as such the 3rd respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; (2) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get? 6. On the petitioner's side of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 13.11.2001; Ex.P2-copy of observation mahazar dated 13.11.2001; Ex.P3-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report dated 18.11.2001; Ex.P4-copy of wound certificate dated 22.12.2001; Ex.P5-copy of charge sheet dated 31.12.2001; Ex.P6-copy of Criminal Court judgment dated 04.02.2002; Ex.P7-Medical bill receipts (series). On the respondents side, two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked as Exhibits R1,R2 and R3 namely Ex.R1-copy of policy; Ex.R2-copy of licence dated 06.02.2001; Ex.R3-document showing notice sent by 3rd respondent to 2nd respondent and the subsequent time period by the 2nd respondent. 7. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence that on 13.11.2001 at about 05.15 p.m., when she was travelling in the 2nd respondents mini bus bearing registration No.TN-74C-1184, from Kannanvillai towards Nagercoil and that when the bus was proceeding near Kannanvillai, the 1st respondent driver drove the bus at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the bus had capsized and caused the accident. In support of her evidence, she had marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P7. 8. From a scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that a criminal case has been filed as against the driver of the bus bearing registration No.T74C-1184 and that the driver has been charge sheeted as per Ex.P5. From scrutiny of Ex.P6, the criminal Court judgment, it is seen that the driver of the bus had admitted his guilt and paid the fine. Hence, the Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW.1 and on scrutiny of exhibits P1, P5 and P6 held that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver, 9. Though the petitioner had stated that she was a Coolie and earning Rs.3,000/-per month, no documentary evidence had been furnished to prove this contention. On scrutiny of Ex.P4, wound certificate, it is seen that the petitioner had taken medical treatment from 13.11.2001 to 17.11.2001. Hence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of income due to injuries sustained by her in the accident; Rs.1,000/- was awarded for transport expenses. PW.2, Doctor had adduced evidence that the petitioner had sustained lacerated injuries in her left forehead and that it was a simple injury. Hence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.1,000/- was awarded towards damage to clothes; Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses as per Ex.P7, medical bills (series); Rs.10,000/-was awarded under the head of pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.22,000/- to the petitioner. 10. RW.2, L. Nallaperumal had adduced evidence that their office had issued the permit for the mini bus to be operated only from Karungal to Pallipadi and that it was valid for the period from 19.01.2001 to 18.01.2006 and in support of his evidence, he had marked ex.R2-copy of permit. He deposed that action had been initiated by their department against the 2nd respondent i.e., owner of the bus as he had plied the bus from Mannanvilai towards Thattapalli which is beyond the range of the coverage envisioned in the permit and that the 2nd respondent had subsequently paid the fine of Rs.4,500/- imposed on him. In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.R3 (document Series). In support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.R3 (document Series). RW.2, had further deposed that plying the vehicle in areas outside the range of the permit and carrying an overload of passengers are treated as violations of policy of insurance and as such the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. 11. The Tribunal on observing that the 2nd respondent had violated the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance held that the 3rd respondent should pay the said compensation to the petitioner and recover the same from the 2nd respondent by initiating proceedings before the executing Court and that it need not file a separate suit. The Tribunal had relied upon on the judgment made in 2004 ACJ page 2094, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, the tribunal for holding the 3rd respondent liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the said sum of Rs.22,000/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit within one month from the date of its order. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the award passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in law in view of the admitted fact that the mini bus bearing registration No.TN-74C-1184 was not covered under a valid permit to ply at the place of occurrence of accident. It was contended that besides violation of the relevant rules of the motor vehicles Act, the policy itself has become void and therefore, the question of indemnification does not arise. It was pointed out that the Tribunal failed to note that 50 passengers had travelled in the mini bus at the time of accident, which is above the permitted capacity and hence the fixing of the liability on the insurer is bad in law. 13. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant is a Coolie. After the accident, she is unable to do her Coolie work. She was treated as an inpatient in a hospital for five days and subsequently she had undergone medical treatment as an outpatient. 13. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant is a Coolie. After the accident, she is unable to do her Coolie work. She was treated as an inpatient in a hospital for five days and subsequently she had undergone medical treatment as an outpatient. The award under nutrition, transport, attender charges and loss of earning during medical treatment period have not been considered properly. The learned counsel further submits that the entire compensation amount had been deposited before the Tribunal as per this Court's order dated 18.10.2006. Subsequently, the entire compensation amount had been withdrawn by the claimant. 14. On hearing the arguments of the learned counsels 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 liability and quantum of compensation, pay and recovery theory has been adopted by the Tribunal and subsequently the award had been passed, which is justifiable. Now, it is open to the appellant/Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, is confirmed, dated 25.10.2005,No costs.