JUDGMENT : K. SOMASHEKAR, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 29.4.2015 passed by the MACT in MVC No.6112/2008 seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that on 11.07.2008 at about 5.50 a.m. when the petitioner was riding the motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-EB-7482 on Hosur Luskar Road, near Forum Mahal, UCO Bank junction, a Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-04-A-5191 came from opposite direction and struck the two wheeler head-on. Due to the said impact, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to St.John's Hospital, where he took treatment as inpatient, underwent surgery and is under follow up treatment. He has spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses. Prior to the accident he was working at Yuva Chain Restaurant as delivery boy and also at M/s.Ayappa Newspaper Agency, and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Due to the accident, he is unable to work as before and suffering from permanent disability. On all these grounds, the petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation. 3. On service of summons, 2nd respondent being the owner did not appeared before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte. First respondent insurer appeared and filed written statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues. In order to establish his case, petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor who treated him as PW.2 and Retired PSI VVIP Security as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and fastened the liability on the second respondent/owner to pay the compensation. It is this judgment which is under challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the owner of offending vehicle and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the owner of offending vehicle and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Further, the Tribunal failed to note that merely because the driver who committed the accident has been charge sheeted for non-production of driving licence to the investigation authorities, it does not mean that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Further, he contends, the compensation awarded under various heads is on lower side and the same has to be enhanced by intervention of this Court. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant seeks for enhancement of the compensation by allowing the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent insurer contends that as per the charge sheet, the driver of the offending vehicle did not had valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and as such there is violation of policy conditions. Further, he specifically denies that the petitioner is suffering from loss of income and permanent disability. He further contends that the expenses incurred by the petitioner are all false and the documents produced are subject to proof of the same. He contends that the tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record has rightly assessed the income of the injured and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not calls for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In this context of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent insurer, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute with regard to the accident that on 11.07.2008 at about 5.50 a.m. when the petitioner was moving on motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-EB-7482 on Hosur Luskar Road, in front of Forum Mahal, UCO Bank Junction, Adugodi, Bangalore met with an accident and sustained injuries due to the actionable negligence on the part of the Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-04-A-5191. Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2 Complaint, Ex.P3-Charge sheet, Ex.P4-Mahazar, Ex.P5- Sketch, Ex.P6-IMV report, Ex.P7-Wound Certificate, Ex.P8-Discharge summary Ex.P14-X-ray films etc, are the documents relied on by the petitioner claiming compensation. Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2 Complaint, Ex.P3-Charge sheet, Ex.P4-Mahazar, Ex.P5- Sketch, Ex.P6-IMV report, Ex.P7-Wound Certificate, Ex.P8-Discharge summary Ex.P14-X-ray films etc, are the documents relied on by the petitioner claiming compensation. The Tribunal on going through the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the incident has happened as pleaded by the petitioner and he has suffered grievous injuries as is evident from the medical records. Accordingly, it awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards laid up period, Rs.30,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. In all the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. Further, it held that as per the charge sheet as the driver had no valid driving licence and for violation of policy condition, fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and dismissed the petition against the insurance company. 9. The learned counsel for the insurer contends that this is a case of "no valid and effective driving license" and therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable, since it touches the essential condition of contract of insurance. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the question raised in the appeal is no longer res integra, the same having been answered by the Apex Court against the insurer in the case of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) AIR SC 592 wherein it is held that as under: "S.149 Insuser's liability Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck insurer taking plea that driver of offending truck had no valid licence except copy of driving licence of person, owner of offending truck not producing any evidence establishing that it was driven by authorised person having valid driving licence fact that offending truck was duly insured would not per se make insurance company liable however, insurance company directed to pay award amount to claimants in first instance and in turn, recover same from owner of vehicle." 10. The question as to the liability of the insurer in the absence of the driver of the offending vehicle not possessing a "valid and effective driving license" has been answered by the Apex Court against the insurer and in favour of the claimant in the judgment referred to supra subject to the principle of "Pay and Recover". 11. The question as to the liability of the insurer in the absence of the driver of the offending vehicle not possessing a "valid and effective driving license" has been answered by the Apex Court against the insurer and in favour of the claimant in the judgment referred to supra subject to the principle of "Pay and Recover". 11. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of reliance as stated supra, and no other grounds having been urged, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2015 in MVC No.6112/2008 is modified, fastening the liability on the first respondent insurer namely, the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. The insurance company shall deposit the entire award amount with interest accrued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.