Judgment: 1. The appellant/Second respondent/Insurance Company preferred the present appeal challenging the liability and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The Cross-Objector, who is the claimant in the above said claim petition filed the Cross-Objection for enhancement of compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in C.M.A and the first respondent in Cross-objection referred as appellant/Insurance Company hereafter. The first respondent in the C.M.A and Cross-Objector in the Cross-Objection referred as claimant and second respondent in both C.M.A and Cross- Objection are referred as the owner of the vehicle hereafter. 4. The claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.953 of 2006 claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the injury sustained in a Motor Accident occurred on 17.05.2003. In the claim petition, it is stated that on 17.05.2003, the claimant was riding a motor-cycle bearing Registration No.TDT 3798 along with his wife from Mazhavarayanatham-Mela Puthaneri. At about 1.30 p.m., the above said motor-cycle reaching north to Ariyanathapuram on Tirunelveli to Tiruchendur main Road, while the claimant riding his motor-cycle in a slow speed on the leftern side of the road towards west; a mini lorry belonging to the second respondent herein bearing Registration No. KL 05 A 3574 insured with the appellant/Insurance Company came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor-cycle. In the above said accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and taking treatment from 17.05.2003 to 06.06.2003 as inpatient and also undergone surgery in right leg and steel plates and screws were inserted. Further, the claimant has taken treatment as out-patient till filing of the claim petition. It is further averred in the claim petition that a criminal case has been registered against the mini lorry driver in Crime No.99 of 2003 and pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Srivaikundram and the above said accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry driver and therefore, the owner and Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. It is also averred in the claim petition that the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 35 and he was running a rice-mill in the name and style as 'Saraswathi Rice Mill' and he earned a sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m and due to the injuries he was unable to continue his work as before and therefore claim compensation of Rs.3 lakhs on various heads. 5. 5. The second respondent in the Civil Miscellaneous appeal and Cross-objection, who is the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal. Only the insurance company has contested the above said claim petition. 6. In the counter filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, in which, it is stated that the accident had occurred in collusion with two vehicles; but the owner of the motor-cycle bearing Registration No.TDT 3798 and insurer of the above said vehicle were not impleaded as parties and therefore, the Claim Petition is not maintainable due to the non-joinder of necessary parties. According to the appellant/Insurance Company, the claimant, who drove the motor-cycle had no valid driving licence at the time of accident and he voluntarily invited the accident. Therefore the claimant alone is solely and exclusively responsible for the accident and the appellant/Insurance Company, being the insurer of the mini lorry is not liable to pay compensation. It is also averred in the counter that the lorry driver had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the lorry at the time of accident. Further the claimant should prove all the contentions about the age, avocation, income, injuries and disability etc. Further the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Before the Tribunal, this claimant and also his wife filed separate claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.953 of 2003 and 833 of 2003 and the trial Court tried both the M.C.O.Ps jointly, in which, on the side of the claimants in both claim petitions, examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company examined two witnesses and marked the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1. 8. The tribunal has considered the above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and finally held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini-lorry belonging to the second respondent herein. Further, the Insurance Company has not proved that the above said mini lorry driver have no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore the Tribunal has held that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as insurer of the second respondent lorry driver. 9. Further, the Insurance Company has not proved that the above said mini lorry driver have no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore the Tribunal has held that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as insurer of the second respondent lorry driver. 9. With regard to the quantum of compensation to the claimants in this case, the tribunal has fixed the age of the claimant as 37' and monthly income fixed as Rs.2,000/-p.m. With regard to the disability, on the side of the claimant examined P.W.3-doctor who issued the Disability Certificate and also marked Ex.B23-Disability Certificate, in which, the Doctor has assessed the disability as 44%. But the Tribunal has discussed about the nature of injuries and disability and finally fixed the disability as 30%. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs.20,000 x 12 x 16 x 30/100 =1,15,200/-. The tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.3,600/-for pain and suffering, Rs.3,600/- for extra nourishment, Rs.500/-for transportation and for attendant charges Rs.1,000/-. The tribunal has considered the medical bills produced by the claimant for a total sum of Rs.1,70,027/-but the tribunal has held that in the claim petition, the claimant had claimed only Rs.1 lakh for medical expenses and hence reduced the above said amount and fixed at Rs.1 lakh for medical expenses. Totally, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,23,900/- with 9% interest and costs. 10. The appellant/Insurance Company questioned the liability to pay compensation and also contended that the quantum of compensation is higherly excessive. The claimant also filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation by contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low. 11. The main contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the second respondent herein, who is the owner of the mini lorry permitted the person who had no valid driving licence to drive the mini lorry and therefore the owner of the vehicle violated the insurance policy condition and on that ground, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Further the learned counsel pointed out that the monthly income of the injured claimant is fixed as Rs.2,000/- is on higher side and award of Rs.1,15,200/- for permanent disability and interest rate of 7.5% p.a are highly excessive and therefore prayed for reducing the compensation. 12. Further the learned counsel pointed out that the monthly income of the injured claimant is fixed as Rs.2,000/- is on higher side and award of Rs.1,15,200/- for permanent disability and interest rate of 7.5% p.a are highly excessive and therefore prayed for reducing the compensation. 12. Per contra, the claimant filed cross-objection in which it is stated that the Tribunal had wrongly fixed a sum of Rs.1 lakh for medical expense inspite medical bills produced for a sum of Rs.1,20,027/- and also the compensation for other heads also very low. 13. Both sides admitted that the accident was occurred as alleged in the claim petition. On the side of the claimant, the injured claimant himself deposed as P.W.1 and also his wife as P.W.2 regarding the negligent driving of the mini lorry driver. Apart from that, on the side of the claimant, marked Ex.P1-Copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P2-Copy of the Charge-sheet, Ex.P3-Copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P5-Copy of the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P6—Copy of Rough Sketch. On a perusal of the above said oral and documentary evidence reveal that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry driver as rightly held by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the second respondent herein/owner of the mini lorry remained exparte. Only the Insurance Company contested the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company has not produced any materials to prove that the appellant/Insurance Company had obtained any permission to contest the cases under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Further on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company has not examined any eye-witness to prove that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry driver. Therefore, it is clear from the oral and documentary evidence produced on the side of the claimant that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry driver. 14. The main contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the mini lorry having no valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is not in dispute that the above said mini lorry is duly insured with the appellant at the time of accident. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company marked the above said policy as R.W.1. It is not in dispute that the above said mini lorry is duly insured with the appellant at the time of accident. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company marked the above said policy as R.W.1. In the above said circumstances, it is the duty of the appellant to prove that the driver of the mini lorry had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Then only, the Insurance Company can avoid to pay compensation. But in the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsels, the Insurance Company has not taken any steps to issue notice to the owner of the vehicle or to the driver of the vehicle to produce the driving licence. No steps have been taken to examine the owner or driver of the vehicle before the Tribunal. On the side of the appellant examined only one official of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Office and Insurance Company Official as R.W.1 and R.W.2. The Motor Vehicle Inspector Office official has not produced any document and he had orally deposed as no driving licence for the driver of the mini lorry. In the above said circumstances, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company miserably failed to prove that at the time of accident, the driver of the mini lorry have no valid driving licence. Further, as already discussed the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry. In the above said circumstances, only on the ground that the claimant failed to produce his licence to ride the motor cycle, the Insurance company cannot escape from payment of compensation since the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry driver and the accident was not occurred due to the fault of the claimant. Therefore the contention of the appellant that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation cannot be accepted. 15. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the claimant stated in the claim petition and also at the time of evidence that the monthly income of the claimant was Rs.5,000/-p.m at the time of accident. But the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.2,000/-p.m on the basis of evidence and period of accident. The age of the claimant is not disputed. But the Tribunal has correctly fixed the monthly income of the deceased only at Rs.2,000/-p.m on the basis of evidence and period of accident. The age of the claimant is not disputed. Further the Tribunal had reduced the disability assessed by the Doctor from 44% to 30% considering the nature of injuries, disability and other factors. A perusal of evidence revealed that the Tribunal correctly reduced the disability. Therefore the above said fixation of disability by the tribunal also is correct. In the above said circumstances, the Tribunal has correctly awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,200/-for loss of income and there is no need to interfere with the above said finding. 16. The contention of the claimant is that the claimant had produced medical bills totally for a sum of Rs.1,70,027/- under Ex.P8 to Ex.P17. But the tribunal wrongly restricted and awarded medical expenses only Rs.1 lakh by stating that in the claim petition, it is mentioned as Rs.1 lakhs under the head of medical expenses. The learned counsel pointed out that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and also taking continuous treatment and in the above said circumstances, the Tribunal should not reduce the compensation for medical expenses. 17. On a perusal of the record and medical bills produced by the claimant reveal that the total amount of medical expenses arrived at Rs.1,70,027/-and the claimant is entitled to the entire actual expenses for medical treatment. With regard to other heads, the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount and both sides not seriously objected the above said findings. Therefore the Civil Miscellaneous appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is to be enhanced from 2,23,900/- to Rs.2,93,927/- with same interest and costs. 18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.135 of 2006 is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is enhanced from 2,23,900/- to Rs.2,93,927/- with same interest an costs and the Cross-Objection is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.