JUDGMENT : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2009 passed in MVOP No. 1331 of 2008 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Third Additional District Judge, Guntur. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.7.2008, at about 9 p.m., the petitioner was standing on the road margin near Srinivas Colony in Nallapadu village to cross the road. At that time, a Tavera car bearing No.AP5-TT 1040 came at a high speed and dashed the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell down on the road and received fracture to left leg and injuries on head and all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was admitted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. The petitioner took treatment as inpatient in the hospital for 30 days. Operation was performed and steel rod was inserted in his leg. Petitioner suffered permanent disability and is not able to attend to his normal duties. Petitioner was working as coolie and earning Rs. 100 per day. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tavera car, the petitioner filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. 2. The respondent No. 1, owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte. The respondent No. 2, insurer, filed written statement denying all the material averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 2 further stated in the written statement that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and that the crime vehicle was not insured with the insurance company. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, PW 1 was examined and Exhs. A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhs. B1 to B5 and Exh. XI were marked. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence available on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000, payable by the respondent No. 1, owner. The liability of the respondent No. 2 was exonerated. 5. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhs. B1 to B5 and Exh. XI were marked. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence available on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000, payable by the respondent No. 1, owner. The liability of the respondent No. 2 was exonerated. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant preferred this appeal, inter alia, contending that the Tribunal awarded inadequate compensation and that it ought to have ordered pay and recover against the respondent No. 2, insurer, and that the rate of interest also needs to be enhanced from 7.5 per cent to 12 per cent per annum. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, insurer. 7. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation and also enhancement of rate of interest from 7.5 per cent per annum to 12 per cent per annum? (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief of pay and recover against the respondent No. 2, insurer? Point No. (i): 8. The appellant-claimant is the injured in the motor vehicle accident. He filed the above OP claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the Tribunal, without considering the evidence on record, has exonerated the liability of the insurer and dismissed the claim against the insurer. It is contended that the Tribunal placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol, 2009 ACJ 1411 (SC) and Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinayaga Moorthi, 2010 ACJ 1605 (Madras) and came to the conclusion that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, exonerated the liability of the insurer. The Tribunal held that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy, as such the liability of insurance company was exonerated. 10. The Tribunal, while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the impugned judgment, at para 8, observed as under: “(8) ...The respondent No. 2 examined RWs 1 and 2 contending that the driver of the car was not possessing a valid driving licence. 10. The Tribunal, while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the impugned judgment, at para 8, observed as under: “(8) ...The respondent No. 2 examined RWs 1 and 2 contending that the driver of the car was not possessing a valid driving licence. As per the evidence of RW 2, the driver Kranthi Kumar was having LMV non-transport driving licence. He is permitted to drive his own vehicle. As per Exh. B1, the policy issued to respondent No. 1 is for a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. That goes to show that the vehicle involved in the accident is a transport vehicle.” 11. In Angad Kol, 2009 ACJ 1411 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered pay and recover as the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence for driving the crime vehicle. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir, 2008 ACJ 2161 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered pay and recover as the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the goods vehicle. 12. In the instant case, the Tribunal has totally dismissed the claim against the respondent No. 2, insurer, in view of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as the driver of crime vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. 13. The Tribunal referred to the decision rendered in the case of Angad Kol, 2009 ACJ 1411 (SC), where there was an order of pay and recover in cases of the driver of the crime vehicle not possessing a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. 14. Even in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC), it was clearly held that if the driver holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle drives a commercial vehicle, he is deemed to have a valid driving licence. 14. Even in the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC), it was clearly held that if the driver holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle drives a commercial vehicle, he is deemed to have a valid driving licence. It was observed in paras 18 and 19 of the judgment in S. Iyappan (supra) as under: “(18) Reading the provisions of sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurer can defend the action, inter alia, on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on me ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving a light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy. (19) In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra maxicab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement on the driving licence to drive Mahindra maxicab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed a grave error of law in holding that insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement on the driving licence to drive Mahindra maxicab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed a grave error of law in holding that insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive a commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside.” 15. In the instant case, the crime vehicle was a Tavera car. It was meant for carrying passengers. The driver of the crime vehicle has obtained non-transport vehicle driving licence and, therefore, in the light of above decisions, this is a fit case where the insurance company can be directed to pay the compensation amount in the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. 16. Coming to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner received fracture injuries to his left leg and also injuries on his head and all over the body. He has undergone operation of his leg and steel rod was inserted in his leg. He has been treated in the hospital as inpatient for 30 days. Exh. A2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate. As per Exh. A2, he sustained 10 injuries, out of which he suffered fractures to both bones of left leg, and injury No. 1 was having subdural haemorrhage. Injuries 1 and 7 are described as grievous injuries and the other injuries are simple in nature. 17. The Claims Tribunal, based on the evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs. 30,000 towards pain and suffering for 2 grievous injuries; Rs. 20,000 towards pain and suffering for 8 simple injuries; Rs. 2,000 for transportation; Rs. 3,000 for extra nourishment; and Rs. 5,000 towards attendant charges. 18. The appellant sought for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are not adequate and also not proportionate to the injuries suffered by the appellant and the treatment undergone by him. 19. In the case of Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 627 (SC), which is a case of personal injuries, the Apex Court has considered various heads like (i) pain and suffering, (ii) medical and incidental expenses, (iii) loss of amenities, (iv) future medical expenses and (v) cost of litigation. 19. In the case of Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 627 (SC), which is a case of personal injuries, the Apex Court has considered various heads like (i) pain and suffering, (ii) medical and incidental expenses, (iii) loss of amenities, (iv) future medical expenses and (v) cost of litigation. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court enunciated the principle for assessment of damages in case of personal injuries. In the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 ACJ 2867 (SC), which is also a case of personal injuries, the Supreme Court has awarded compensation considering various heads. 20. Keeping in view the rationale in the above decisions, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as shown in the tabular format below: 20. Appellant requested for enhancement of rate of interest from 7.5 per cent to 12 per cent. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC), the appropriate rate of interest in the present case is 7.5 per cent, and, therefore, I do not see any ground to increase the rate of interest. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, directing the respondent No. 2, insurer, to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 1,11,000 with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realization, in the first instance, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and thereafter recover the same from the respondent No. 1, owner of the crime vehicle, as per the procedure laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC). On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.