JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Subject matter of these appeals is award, dated 24th August, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (for short ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Petition No. 41-S/2 of 2008, titled as Sh. Aman versus Sh. Neeraj Dewan and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,48,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award with right of recovery (for short ?the impugned award?). 3. The owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. The insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 391 of 2011 on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 5. The claimant-injured has also called in question the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 91 of 2012 on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 6. Thus, following points arise for determination in these appeals: ? (i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery? (ii) Whether the amount awarded is inadequate? 7. I have gone through the impugned award read with the record and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery and the awarded amount is adequate for the following reasons: 8. The claimant-injured, who was 23 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as IT Engineer with M/s Ambuja Cement, Darlaghat, became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Jitender Kumar, while driving Mahindra Pick Up No. HP-09A-1993, rashly and negligently, on 23rd September, 2007, at about 12.30 A.M., near Summer Hill, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries and suffered 84% permanent disability of right arm. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 9. He filed claim petition before the Tribunal and claimed compensation, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 9. The respondents in the claim petition resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 10. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: ?1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Pick-Up No. HP-09A-1993 by respondent No. 2? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Whether the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger in the vehicle at the time of accident? OPR-3 7. Relief.? 11. Parties have led evidence. Issue No. 1: 12. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle has not questioned the said findings, thus, the same have attained finality. However, I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the claimant-injured had proved by leading evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle had driven the same rashly and negligently on 23rd September, 2007, near Summer Hill and caused the accident, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 13. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. Issue No. 3: 14. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, has not led any evidence to this effect, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Even otherwise, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ?MV Act?) has gone through sea change in the year 1994 and in terms of Section 158 (6) and 166 (4) of the MV Act, even a police report can be treated as claim petition. Even otherwise, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ?MV Act?) has gone through sea change in the year 1994 and in terms of Section 158 (6) and 166 (4) of the MV Act, even a police report can be treated as claim petition. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 5: 15. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence and the record, while making discussions in paras 28 and 29 of the impugned award, has rightly decided issue No. 5 against the insurer. Accordingly the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are upheld. Issues No. 4 and 6: 17. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a 'light goods vehicle' and the Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 24 to 27 of the impugned award and has granted right of recovery to the insurer while holding that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle had committed a willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver and owner-insured of the offending vehicle have not questioned the said findings, thus, have attained finality. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No.4 and 6 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 18. Admittedly, the claimant-injured was IT Engineer by profession. The injury has shattered his physical frame and has affected his earning capacity. The Tribunal, in paras 15 to 21 of the impugned award, has given details as to how it has assessed the compensation. 19. It is beaten law of the land that in injury cases, the compensation is to be assessed while exercising guess work. 20. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771, has clearly laid down the principles as to how compensation has to be awarded in cases where the claimant has suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 21. 21. The Apex Court in its latest decision in the case titled as Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the whole life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the said decision hereunder: ?11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.? 22. Applying the tests to the instant case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the assessment and awarded compensation in favour of the claimant injured, which appears to be just, cannot be said to be inadequate or otherwise. Accordingly, the amount awarded is maintained. 23. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 4 and 6 have attained finality, thus, the Tribunal, has fallen in an error in directing the insurer to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery. 24. The mandate of Sections 146, 147 and 149 of the MV Act is to protect the rights of third parties and that is why, compulsory duty has been cast on the owners to get the vehicles insured, so that, claim of third parties cannot be defeated. 25. The Apex Court has also discussed this aspect in a case titled as S. Iyyapan versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 62. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the judgment herein: "16. The heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks" given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force." 26. In view of the above, the claimant-injured, who is a third party, cannot be left in lurch and cannot be dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar in order to get compensation. Thus, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimant-injured by directing the insurer to satisfy the award with right of recovery. 27. My this view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus K.M. Poonam and others, reported in 2011 ACJ 917 . It is apt to reproduce paras 24 and 26 of the judgment herein: ?24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle. 25. ….......... 26. Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons travelling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case (supra). The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case.? 28. It would also be profitable to reproduce paras 19 to 21 and 25 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Saju P. Paul and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 554 , herein: ?19. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this case a direction could be issued to the insurance company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 2 herein). 20. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), this Court was confronted with a similar situation. 2 herein). 20. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), this Court was confronted with a similar situation. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in paragraph 21 of the Report held as under : " (21) The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh. The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding." 21. The above position has been followed by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC), wherein this Court in para 13 observed as under: " (13) The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. The above position has been followed by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC), wherein this Court in para 13 observed as under: " (13) The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. In the instant case, considering the quantum involved, we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured." 22 to 24. …........ 25. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) and Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC) should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, claimant was 28 years' old. He is now about 48 years. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, claimant was 28 years' old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The insurance company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 01.08.2011 and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent No. 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court along-with accrued interest. The insurance company (appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent No. 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the insurance company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in the case of Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC).? 29. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a batch of FAOs, FAO No. 353 of 2012, titled as Dev Raj versus Shri Krishan Lal and others, being the lead case, decided on 24th June, 2016; and FAO No. 167 of 2011, titled as Narender Singh Shekhawat versus Jasbir Singh and others, alongwith another connected matter, decided on 12th August, 2016 . 30. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the impugned award at the first instance with right of recovery. 31. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and both the appeals are dismissed. 32. Registry to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 33. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.