JUDGMENT Ashok S. Kinagi, J. - The appeal in MFA No. 22837/2012 is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.03.2012 in MVC No. 2032/2011 passed by the FTC-II, and Additional MACT, Belagavi. The appeal in MFA No. 23659/2012 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts of the case are that, on 26.07.2011 the claimant was proceeding on his bicycle from his house towards his land on the extreme left side of the road and when he came within the village limits of Maradishivapur village at about 7.00 hours, one jeep bearing No. KA-29/M-1355 came from behind driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained injuries and he taken treatment at Nimra Hospital, Gokak and other hospital and also spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- towards his treatment. The claimant has filed claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him on the ground that, due to accidental injuries the claimant become disabled and lost the earning capacity and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. Hence, it is prayed to award the compensation to the claimant. 3. The Tribunal issued notice. The notice was served on respondent No. 1, i.e., owner of the vehicle and he remained ex-parte. The insurance company filed statement of objections stating that the claim petition filed by the claimant is false, vexatious and same is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complaint was lodged after four days of the accident. It is further contended that the claimant has not sustained any injuries and there is no permanent disability. He further contends that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and the owner of the vehicle had entrusted the vehicle to the driver who had no valid driving licence to drive the jeep and thereby the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the said jeep who is respondent No. 2 herein and sought for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company. 4. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the said jeep who is respondent No. 2 herein and sought for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company. 4. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings has framed following issues: i) Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries in the alleged accident caused on 26.07.2011 at about 7.00 hours, while he was proceeding on his bicycle, on Maradi Shivapur-Betageri road, within the limits of maradishivapur village, due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the said jeep bearing no. KA-29/M-1355? ii) Whether petitioner proves is entitled to compensation, if so for how much and from whom? iii) What order or award? 5. The claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined one doctor as P.W. 2 and got marked documents Exs. P1 to P12. The respondents have not adduced any evidence but got marked policy at Ex. R1 and Ex. R driving licence. After considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 68,000/- to the claimant. 6. The insurance company filed the appeal challenging the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. He further submitted that the driving licence which is produced as Ex. R2, it in respect of a heave goods vehicle. Though the appellant-insurance company has filed an application before the Tribunal calling upon the owner of the vehicle to produce the driving licence of the driver of the jeep, the owner nor the driver of the jeep produced the driving licence. When the owner as well as the driver has not come forward to produce the driving licence even after filing of an application, the adverse inference is drawn that the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The owner of the jeep has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and for the said reason, respondent No. 2 herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 7. The owner of the jeep has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and for the said reason, respondent No. 2 herein is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 7. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Shamanna and Another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 650 , has held that, onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Whether driver did not possess valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, 'pay and recover' can be ordered in case of third party risks. In the present case respondent No. 2 herein i.e., owner has not produced any records to show that the driver of the vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. As per the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, the insurance company has to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. The Tribunal has rightly directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimant and later recover the same from the owner. The Tribunal has not committed any error in directing the insurance company to pay and recover the amount. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. 8. The appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, the claimant has produced wound certificate which is marked as Ex. P6. It reveals that, 1) Abrasion right scapula area, 2) Contusion right knee. X-ray reads that, 1) Fracture clavicle right, 2) Acromio clavicular sub lunation right shoulder joint. The doctor opined that, injury Nos. 1 and 2 are grievous in nature. Considering the wound certificate and also injuries which are grievous in nature, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering. In fact from perusal of Ex. P6-wound certificate, the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability and the said injuries do not have any impact on the earning capacity. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 8,000/- medical bills, Rs. 30,000/- towards disability, Rs. 4,000/- towards attendant and diet charges and Rs. In fact from perusal of Ex. P6-wound certificate, the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability and the said injuries do not have any impact on the earning capacity. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 8,000/- medical bills, Rs. 30,000/- towards disability, Rs. 4,000/- towards attendant and diet charges and Rs. 1,000/- towards conveyance. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of amenities. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. To that extent, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. To that extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The amount deposited by the insurance company be transmitted to the Tribunal.