JUDGMENT : 1. As the issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in all the three appeals are being referred to by their names. 3. Assailing over the common judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Additional Sub Court), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, in M.C.O.P.Nos.43 to 45 of 2008, respectively, dated 17.12.2009, the present civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records carefully. 5. It is a case of injury. On 27.08.2007, when the appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.528 of 2012, namely, Balasundaram, rode his motorcycle, with his wife, namely, S.Malar/appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.529 of 2012 and their minor daughter, namely, B.Bala Sineka/appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.530 of 2012, as pillion riders, a tractor along with trailer, driven by the first respondent; owned by the second respondent; and insured with the third respondent dashed at the motorcycle. In consequence of the accident, the rider and the pillion riders fell down and got injured. All the appellants herein have individually filed claim petitions before the tribunal and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,671/- as compensation for T.Balasundaram; Rs.1,52,130/- as compensation for S.Malar; and Rs.9,868/- as compensation for B.Bala Sineka (Minor). Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellants/claimants are before this Court, seeking enhancement. 6. The mode of accident as well as the percentage of disability are not disputed. Due to the accident, T.Balasundaram sustained 15% disability; S.Malar sustained 20% disability, for which, compensation was awarded @ Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability, which, in my considered opinion is meagre and therefore, the same warrants interference. It is seen from the records that for the motorcycle which got damaged in the accident, no compensation was awarded and the same deserves interference. 7. Due to the accident, the appellants herein have sustained grievous injuries and they had undertaken treatment at Sushrusha Hospital, both as inpatients for some time and also as outpatients, for which, they had also produced documents and the same were also proved before the tribunal. Moreover, S.Malar has underwent surgery and plates were placed, which were subsequently removed. 7. Due to the accident, the appellants herein have sustained grievous injuries and they had undertaken treatment at Sushrusha Hospital, both as inpatients for some time and also as outpatients, for which, they had also produced documents and the same were also proved before the tribunal. Moreover, S.Malar has underwent surgery and plates were placed, which were subsequently removed. The tribunal, after analyzing all the factors, has awarded a decent sum towards pain and sufferings, however, this Court feels that the same is a minimal one, comparing to the affliction faced by the appellants and therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation towards pain and sufferings. 8. On a perusal of the judgment and decree of the tribunal, this Court feels that other than these three heads (aforementioned), the compensation awarded by the tribunal is fair and reasonable and therefore, the same does not warrant any interference. 9. The compensation awarded by the tribunal in the aforementioned three heads, now stands modified as follows: Appellants/Parties Head Compensation awarded by the tribunal Compensation fixed by this Court Difference in Compensation/Amount enhanced by this Court T.Balasundaram Disability Rs.22,500/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.7,500/- S.Malar (15% X Rs.1,500/-) (15% X Rs.2,000/-) B.Bala Sineka (Minor) Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.10,000/- (20% X Rs.1,500/-) (20% X Rs.2,000/-) NIL T.Balasundaram Pain and Sufferings Rs.10,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- S.Malar Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.20,000/- B.Bala Sineka (Minor) Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.5,000/- T.Balasundaram Damages to the Vehicle NIL Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- S.Malar NIL B.Bala Sineka (Minor) NIL 10. In result, for T.Balasundaram, the compensation amount is fixed at Rs.1,55,171/- [Rs.1,27,671/- + Rs.27,500/- (enhanced by this Court)]; for S.Malar, the compensation amount is fixed at Rs.1,82,130/- [Rs.1,52,130/- + Rs.30,000/-(enhanced by this Court)]; and for B.Bala Sineka (Minor), the compensation amount is fixed at Rs.14,868/- [Rs.9,868/- + Rs.5,000/-(enhanced by this Court)]. 11. Going by the facts of the case, it is seen that at the time of accident, the first respondent/driver, on whose negligence the accident occurred, was not in possession of a valid driving licence, as contended by the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is inclined to apply pay and recovery theory. 11. Going by the facts of the case, it is seen that at the time of accident, the first respondent/driver, on whose negligence the accident occurred, was not in possession of a valid driving licence, as contended by the Insurance Company. Therefore, this Court is inclined to apply pay and recovery theory. In this connection, it is also apt to mention the judgment reported in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS reported in 2004(2) CTC 464, wherein, the mode of recovery has clearly been dealt in paragraph 8 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- “Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned 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. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to 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 concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, 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 realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. Appeal disposed of accordingly.” 12. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the judgment cited supra, it is the fittest case where pay and recovery can be ordered. Accordingly, in the case on hand, pay and recovery is ordered. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. Appeal disposed of accordingly.” 12. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the judgment cited supra, it is the fittest case where pay and recovery can be ordered. Accordingly, in the case on hand, pay and recovery is ordered. The third respondent / Insurance Company in all the appeals is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any, and on such deposit being made, T.Balasundaram & S.Malar, i.e., the claimants/appellants in C.M.A.(MD)Nos.528 & 529 of 2012, are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, with accrued interests and costs, without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. Insofar as B.Bala Sineka (Minor)/appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.530 of 2012 is concerned, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimant in a nationalized bank until she attains majority. The appellant in C.M.A.(MD)No.528 of 2012/T.Balasundaram, who is the father/guardian, is permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in three months. The third respondent / Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the second respondent / owner of the vehicle as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanjappan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2003(1)L.W. 77. 13. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. No costs.