JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.04.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.920 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VII Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan, the appellant - injured preferred M.A.C.M.A. NO.1228 of 2006, the owner of the vehicle preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.3339 of 2008 and the Insurance Company preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.4048 of 2012. 2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.37,000/- with interest at 7.5% to the claimant - injured towards compensation. The Tribunal further held that both the owner and Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation and that the Insurer shall pay the compensation at the first place and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 3. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant - injured preferred MACMA No.1228 of 2006. Feeling aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation at first place and recover the same from the owner of vehicle, the owner filed MACMA No.3339 of 2008. The Insurance Company preferred MACMA No.4048 of 2012 disputing the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in O.P. before the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant, owner and Insurer. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant - injured would submit that the vehicle in dispute was not hired by the injured. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.37,000/- towards compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum thereon as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- laid by the claimant. The Tribunal has awarded the said amount without considering the nature and graveness of the injuries sustained by the claimant and also other aspects including pain and suffering, treatment taken by him and extra nourishment etc. With the said contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant - injured prayed to enhance the compensation. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer that the vehicle in dispute is a private vehicle i.e., Jeep and it was hired by the injured and others and thus, there is violation of the policy conditions. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer that the vehicle in dispute is a private vehicle i.e., Jeep and it was hired by the injured and others and thus, there is violation of the policy conditions. But, the Tribunal without considering the same and without appreciating the contentions of the Insurer, awarded the compensation in the manner stated above and the said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. Learned counsel would further contend that there is no dispute with regard to the accident and coverage of insurance of the vehicle. His only contention is with regard to violation of conditions of policy i.e. Ex.B-1. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Insurer would rely upon Ex.B-5 - statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), wherein it is stated by the Principal of the school that the said vehicle was hired by the claimant and others. 8. The learned counsel for the owner would contend that the Tribunal without considering the contention of the owner that the vehicle was covered under Ex.B1 - Insurance Policy with Insurer and the said policy was in force as on the date of accident. The vehicle was not hired and it was taken by the injured and others from owner of the vehicle. There is no evidence that there were more than the permitted capacity of passengers in the vehicle at the time of accident. There is no evidence on record that the driver of the vehicle is not having a valid license. The Tribunal without considering the said aspect, awarded an amount of Rs.37,000/- towards compensation to the claimant holding that the Insurer has to pay the compensation at the first place and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle on the ground that there is violation of policy conditions. 9. A perusal of the entire evidence on record including Ex.B-1 insurance policy and Ex.B-5 - statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C would show that the accident is not in dispute and coverage of insurance under Ex.B1 policy to the said vehicle is also not in dispute. 9. A perusal of the entire evidence on record including Ex.B-1 insurance policy and Ex.B-5 - statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C would show that the accident is not in dispute and coverage of insurance under Ex.B1 policy to the said vehicle is also not in dispute. In Ex.B-5 - statement of the Principal of the School recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. it is stated that the vehicle was hired by the claimant and others. Except the said Ex.B-5 - statement, there is no other evidence to show that the vehicle was hired. 10. It is settled principle that the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., have no evidentiary value. But, the learned counsel for Insurer has relied upon a judgment in Bontu Venkata Rao v. Kalla Venkataramana, 2003 (3) ALD 314 and Malakala Surya Rao v. Gundapuneedi Janakamma, AIR 1964 (AP) 198 , wherein while dealing with a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held that bar of admissibility of statement recorded by police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. applies only when he is examined in the criminal case and that the said bar does not apply to civil proceedings, like a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act and hence statement of owner of vehicle involved in the accident can be admitted in evidence in a claim filed under the provisions of M.V. Act. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant - injured and owner would submit that the Insurer did not examine the owner of the vehicle and also the principal whose statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.B5. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. On perusal of the entire evidence, admittedly, the Insurer did not examine the owner of the vehicle as well as the Principal whose statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. vide Ex.B5 before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Insurer cannot rely upon Ex.B5 - statement of the Principal of the School. More over, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficiary legislation and benefit should be given to the injured/deceased or legal heirs of the deceased whose benefit the Act was enacted. Therefore, the Insurer cannot rely upon Ex.B5 - statement of the Principal of the School. More over, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficiary legislation and benefit should be given to the injured/deceased or legal heirs of the deceased whose benefit the Act was enacted. It is also settled principle of law that where two views are possible, the view which is beneficial to the injured/legal heirs of the deceased should be given. 13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer that there were 14 to 16 persons in the Jeep at the time of accident and the driver of the vehicle had allowed more than the permitted capacity. Thus, the injured is an unauthorized passenger. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurer that the driver of the vehicle is not having a valid license and, therefore, Insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. 14. On perusal of the evidence, more particularly, evidence of PW.1, wherein during cross-examination, he has admitted that there were about 14 to 16 persons travelling in the jeep at the time of accident and that he paid fare to the driver of the jeep and the jeep was hired for visiting Basara. As per Ex.B6 proceedings issued by Additional Licensing Authority, RTA, Hyderabad East Zone, dated 26.06.2004, it is stated that as per the office record, Driving License No.24179/HE/1998, dated 14.12.1998 was issued in favour of one Sri P. Srikanth, son of Sri P. Sri Ramulu, resident of Nallakunta, Hyderabad, and not issued in favour of Sri Shaik Ahmed, son of Hussain Miya. But, the Insurer did not examine the author of Ex.B6. However, in Ex.A2 - charge sheet, the name of driver is mentioned as Shaik Ahmed. Thus, admittedly, the claimant and the owner of the vehicle failed to establish that the driver of the vehicle is having driving license, much less a valid driving license as on the date of accident. Thus, there is violation of policy conditions. 15. Though it is contended by the owner of the vehicle that the driver is having valid license, he has not examined any witness including the driver of the vehicle. The Insurer though filed Ex.B6 proceedings, did not examine its author. Even the Insurer did not examine the driver of the vehicle by taking appropriate steps. 15. Though it is contended by the owner of the vehicle that the driver is having valid license, he has not examined any witness including the driver of the vehicle. The Insurer though filed Ex.B6 proceedings, did not examine its author. Even the Insurer did not examine the driver of the vehicle by taking appropriate steps. PW.1 admitted that there were about 14 to 16 persons in the Jeep at the time of accident and that he has paid fare to the driver of the jeep. As per Ex.B5, statement of the Principal of the School recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and as per deposition of PW.1, it can safely be held that the vehicle was hired to go to Basara by the injured and others and thereby the owner violated the policy conditions. As discussed above, the driver of the vehicle is also not having a valid driving license as on the date of accident. As per deposition of PW.1, there were 14 to 16 persons at the time of accident in the jeep. Thus, there is violation of policy conditions. 16. As per the principle held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manura Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796 and Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2019 (5) ALD 62 (SC), if there is any violation of policy condition, Insurer has to pay the compensation at the first place and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, applying the said principle, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the claimant and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. There is no error in the said finding. The owner and insurer of the vehicle failed to establish and satisfy this Court any ground or circumstance warranting interference by this Court in the present appeals. 17. Coming to the enhancement of compensation, it is the contention of the claimant that he sustained three grievous injuries and in proof of the same, he has filed Ex.A3 - wound certificate and examined PW.2, the doctor, who treated him. He has filed Ex.A5 - medical bills and Ex.A6 - prescriptions. 17. Coming to the enhancement of compensation, it is the contention of the claimant that he sustained three grievous injuries and in proof of the same, he has filed Ex.A3 - wound certificate and examined PW.2, the doctor, who treated him. He has filed Ex.A5 - medical bills and Ex.A6 - prescriptions. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for the said injuries and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards other incidental expenses and in all, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.37,000/- towards compensation. 18. As per Ex.A3 - wound certificate and also as per deposition of PW.1 and PW.2 - doctor, who treated the claimant - injured, deposed that the claimant has sustained three grievous injuries viz., fracture of right scapula, fracture of both bones of right leg and fracture of 1, 2, 3 of the right side of the chest. PW.2, the doctor, has also advised to take X-rays and accordingly X-rays were taken. The claimant has taken treatment in Government Hospital, Nizamabad, which is not disputed by respondent No.2. On considering the nature of injuries, which are grievous in nature, according to this Court, the appellant - claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- each of the fracture injury and, thus, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for the said three fracture injuries as against the amount of Rs.30,000/- granted by the Tribunal. 19. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, the same is maintained. Though the claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.82,000/- towards transport and medical expenses, he has filed only three medical bills vide Ex.P5 for an amount of Rs.737.40ps. and, therefore, the same is awarded rounding it off to Rs.740/-. 20. Admittedly, the claimant has received the above said three grievous injuries and, therefore, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment. He is also entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothes. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,06,740/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Concerning rate of interest, the Tribunal has granted the same at 7.5% per annum. This Court has been consistently awarding the said rate of interest and, therefore, the same is maintained. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,06,740/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Concerning rate of interest, the Tribunal has granted the same at 7.5% per annum. This Court has been consistently awarding the said rate of interest and, therefore, the same is maintained. 22. Accordingly, MACMA No.1228 of 2006 filed by the claimant - injured is allowed in part, and the order and decree dated 13.04.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.920 of 2002 passed by the Tribunal are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,06,740/- (Rupees one lakh six thousand seven hundred and forty only) from Rs.37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till realization. The claimant - injured is permitted to withdraw the said amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier, and then shall recover the same from the owner of the jeep. However, MACMA No.3339 of 2008 filed by the owner and MACMA No.4048 of 2012 filed by the Insurer are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.