JUDGMENT : The appellant – National Insurance Company Limited/Respondent No.2 filed this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree passed in MVOP.No.577 of 2000, dated 25.11.2004, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge’s Court, (FTC) Ongole, granting compensation of Rs.35,000/-along with interest at 9% per annum, for the injuries sustained by the first respondent herein in the Motor accident occurred on 16.08.1999. 2. Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant – insurance company and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – injured claimant, through video conference. 3. The parties in this appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition before the Tribunal. 4. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The injured claimant filed the OP, against the owner of the Tractor involved in the accident and the insurance company, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 16.08.1999. The 1st respondent – owner of the Tractor remained exparte. The insurance company filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the petition. At trial, the injured claimant himself was examined as PW1 and a supporting witness was examined as PW2. Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On behalf of insurance company, RW1 was examined. However, no documents were marked on its side. On merits and by the order impugned in this appeal, the Tribunal allowed the petition granting compensation of Rs.35,000/-and directed the insurance company to deposit the same and then recover from the 1st respondent. Aggrieved of the said order, the insurance company filed this appeal. 5. Sri R.K. Suri, learned standing counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal, without considering the plea of the appellant that the injured claimant is a gratuitous passenger and unauthorized person in the offending tractor and not covered by the insurance policy and therefore the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, directed the appellant insurance company to first pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the offending tractor, which is illegal and arbitrary. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein – injured claimant supported the order of the Tribunal. 7. I have perused the order impugned. 8. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein – injured claimant supported the order of the Tribunal. 7. I have perused the order impugned. 8. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence of PW1-injured witness and PW2, coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 came to the conclusion that the Motor accident occurred on 16.08.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor and in that accident, the petitioner received grievous as well as simple injuries. As per Ex.A3-wound certificate, PW1 received seven injuries, which are as follows: i.A red abrasion of 2 X 2 on the right side of forehead. ii. Another abrasion of 4 X 1 on the left forearm. iii. Small abrasions near the right. iv. Fracture of shaft of humerus of the left arm, YD X-ray NOMIC 428/ dated 16.08.1999. v. Tenderness on abdomen with distension of abdomen. X-ray of abdomen vide X-ray No.428/ dated 16.08.1999 did not show any abnormality. vi. Tenderness on left pelvis. As for X-ray report vide X-ray NOMIC 48/dated 16.08.1999 there is fracture of the superior and inferior ramy of the left pubis and also fracture of the superior rames of the right pubis. vii. Separation of the right great toe with fracture dislocation of the inter phalanxeal joint clinically. As per the X-ray report of the right foot AP lateral views, vide X-ray NOMIC 428 dated 16.08.1999 there is dislocation of the inter phalanseal joint of the right great toe. The doctor, who issued the wound certificate, opined that injuries 1, 2, 3 and 5 are simple injuries and injuries 4, 6 and 7 are grievous injuries. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,000/-for each grievous injury, Rs.1,000/-for each simple injury and Rs.1,000/-for medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal in all granted total compensation of Rs.35,000/-with interest at the rate of 9% P.A., which is just and reasonable. The second respondent is directed to pay the said compensation to the petitioner. However the second respondent is given the liberty to recover the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner / claimant from the owner of the offending tractor by filing execution petition before the Tribunal. 9. The second respondent is directed to pay the said compensation to the petitioner. However the second respondent is given the liberty to recover the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner / claimant from the owner of the offending tractor by filing execution petition before the Tribunal. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the Tribunal considering the evidence of PWs1 & 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 rightly came to the conclusion that the motor accident occurred on 16.08.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor and in that accident the petitioner sustained injuries for which the Tribunal rightly granted total compensation of Rs.35,000/-along with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The said order of the Tribunal could not be found fault with. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant insurance company that the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant insurance company to deposit the compensation of Rs.35,000/-along with interest before the Tribunal and recover the same from the second respondent owner of the offending tractor is illegal and arbitrary, does not merit consideration. Accordingly, this Court found that there are no merits in the appeal to interfere with the order/award passed by the Tribunal. 10. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.