JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement challenging the judgment and award dated 23.01.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Harihar (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.51/2011. 2. The appellant/respondents herein are the claimant/respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- On 06.03.2010 at about 7:30 a.m., while the appellant/claimant was standing at the Vatlahalli Village bus stop to go to the Duggavathi cattle market along with his sheep, a Mazda lorry bearing registration No.KA-17-A-4086 arrived. His companion, Mylappa, boarded the lorry with his sheep, at that time, the claimant was standing beside the lorry on the road when respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle), suddenly drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, causing injuries to his left thigh, ankle and other parts of his body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Harihar and thereafter to Basaveshwara Health Center, Davanagere, where he underwent treatment as an inpatient for about 22 days. He spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses. 4. It was also pleaded that prior to occurrence of the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, earning Rs.7,500/- per month through coolie work. Due to the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability and is unable to continue his work. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurer, therefore, all respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. The claimant had claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,51,100/- which is inadequate and on the lower side. Hence, being aggrieved by the judgment and the quantum of compensation as well as the finding on liability, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the award. 6. After service of notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 denied rash and negligent driving and the claimant’s alleged injuries, asserting that respondent No.1 held a valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured. 6. After service of notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 denied rash and negligent driving and the claimant’s alleged injuries, asserting that respondent No.1 held a valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured. The respondent No.3 disputed the existence of a valid insurance policy and a proper licence endorsement at the time of the accident, alleged violation of policy conditions due to unauthorized passengers and denied negligence and the claimant’s claimed particulars and contended that it would be liable only upon proof of valid driving documents and permits. The respondent No.4 stated that he had sold the vehicle to respondent No.2 prior to the accident and that liability, if any, rested with the insured owner and insurer. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the compensation awarded is on lower side, particularly when the appellant sustained injuries resulting in 30% disability and was inpatient for the period of 22 days and incurred substantial expenses. The Tribunal also failed to award amounts towards future medical expenses despite medical evidence showing the need for regular follow-up treatment. 8. It is further submitted that the amounts awarded under medical expenses, nourishment, pain and suffering, and loss of income during the laid-up period are inadequate and require enhancement. The Tribunal has also wrongly shifted liability onto the owner of the vehicle, even though there was a valid insurance policy in force at the time of the accident, which was not disputed. The defence taken by the Insurance Company regarding driving licence and policy violation is not permissible under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the MV Act’ for short). 9. It is further submitted that breach of permit conditions or issues relating to route or jurisdiction do not absolve the insurer from its liability to pay compensation, and such defences cannot be taken under the MV Act. The insurance policy covers passenger liability and does not prohibit use of the vehicle outside permitted areas. Therefore, the liability must be fastened on the Insurance Company. 10. It is also contended that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is on the lower side. However, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, the present appeal is filed seeking pay and recovery and for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. 10. It is also contended that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads is on the lower side. However, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, the present appeal is filed seeking pay and recovery and for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 . 12. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all the heads are just and proper and also contended that the claimant have not suffered any injury. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record. 14. It is not in dispute that appellant has sustained injuries stated supra. The appellant has examined treated Doctor as PW-2, who has stated that petitioner has suffered disability to an extent of 30% physical permanent disablement. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability of the appellant at 10% to the whole body. The Tribunal has taken income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. The accident is of the year ‘2010’. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, notional income of the appellant is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month. The appellant was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. Hence, multiplier applicable is ‘17’. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,12,200/- (5,500 x 12 x 17 x 10%) is awarded under the head ‘loss of future income due to disability’. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘Pain and sufferings’. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the said head. 16. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,100/- towards ‘Medical Expenses’ which is as per medical bills and the same is kept intact. 17. In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant would have taken rest atleast for a period of 4 months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.5,500/- per month and calculating the laid up period for 4 months, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500 x 4), under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. 17. In view of the accidental injuries, the claimant would have taken rest atleast for a period of 4 months. Therefore, by taking income at Rs.5,500/- per month and calculating the laid up period for 4 months, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.5,500 x 4), under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘Attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges’, which is on the lower side. Thus, sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the said head. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘future medical expenses and discomfort in future life’, which is on the lower side. Hence, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the said head. 20. In summary, the total compensation re-determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 21. On re-determination, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,48,300/- as against Rs.1,51,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Regarding pay and recovery: 22. In the present case, the Tribunal has observed that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and has dismissed the claim petition against the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. It has further observed that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and hence, has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had produced driving licence which was not marked. On careful perusal of the said licence, it reveals that on 25.09.1992, driving licence was issued by the authority in the name of respondent No.1 to drive both light motor vehicle transport and light motor vehicle non-transport. For transport, it was valid from 29.09.1992 to 04.02.1995 and for non-transport, it was valid from 25.09.1992 to 25.08.2006. As on the date of accident i.e., on 06.03.2010, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive. Hence, the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation to the claimant. As on the date of accident i.e., on 06.03.2010, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive. Hence, the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation to the claimant. However, as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) when the Insurance Company established the fact that the driver was not holding driving licence, then as per Sub-sections (1), (4), (7) of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company as if the judgment debtor shall satisfy the claim in respect of third parties and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the order of pay and recovery is made as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 ; National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and also as per the full bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Yellavva and Another, 2020 ACJ 2560 . Accordingly, an order of pay and recovery is made. To this extent, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. 23. Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization and shall recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 24. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. 23. Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization and shall recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 24. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC.No.51/2011, dated 23.01.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Harihar is modified; iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,48,300/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the petition till realization; iv) The compensation amount along with accrued interest if any, shall be deposited by the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company, within eight weeks from the date of filing of the petition till realization and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle; v) Upon deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of appellant on proper identification in terms of award. vi) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vii) No order as to costs.