JUDGMENT : (K.V. ARAVIND, J.) Heard Sri Yash R. Nadakarni, learned counsel for Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant- petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.04.2015 passed in MVC No.1134/2013 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded and is filed seeking enhancement thereof. 3. The case of the appellant is that on 03.03.2013, at about 9:00 p.m., while he was proceeding from Peeranwadi towards his native village, Karle, on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-22/W-8938, a TATA Ace Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-22/N-7109 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided with his motorcycle. As a result of the said impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted as an inpatient at KLE Hospital, Belagavi, where he underwent surgery and incurred medical expenses exceeding Rs.2,50,000/-. 4. The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act ’), seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. It was contended that he was engaged in electrical work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 5. Upon service of notice, the respondents entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their statement of objections, denying the material allegations made in the petition, including the age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It was specifically contended that the alleged accident did not occur due to the fault or negligence of the driver of the offending TATA Ace Rickshaw. 6. The petitioner examined 2 witnesses and got marked 15 documents as exhibits in support of his case. On the other hand, the respondents examined 3 witnesses and produced 3 documents, which were marked as exhibits. 7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, assessed the compensation at Rs.3,79,780/-, having taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- and the disability at 10%. On the other hand, the respondents examined 3 witnesses and produced 3 documents, which were marked as exhibits. 7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, assessed the compensation at Rs.3,79,780/-, having taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- and the disability at 10%. The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads, including loss of earnings during the laid-up period, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, food and nourishment, conveyance, and other incidental expenses. 8. Sri Yash R. Nadakarni, learned counsel for Sri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the absence of proof of established income, the Tribunal erred in not considering the notional income, which, as per prevailing standards, ought to have been taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was a skilled electrical worker and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, has suffered functional disability. The assessment of 10% permanent functional disability by the Tribunal is, therefore, erroneous and contrary to the medical evidence on record. 9. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under the head 'loss of earning during the laid-up period' is inadequate. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 18 days. It is contended that the appellant is unable to walk without the aid of a stick and has suffered 3/4 th shortening of the right lower limb, an operative scar over the left thigh, wasting of the left thigh and calf muscles, with measurements showing right thigh at 16 cm and left at 17.5 cm, along with restrictions in the movement of the right hip and knee joints. 10. Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2–Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of the overall evidence on record, has rightly determined the monthly income as well as the percentage of disability. It is contended that the compensation awarded under various heads is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. Another contention urged by the learned counsel for the insurer is that the owner of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is, therefore, contended that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and consequently, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. Another contention urged by the learned counsel for the insurer is that the owner of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is, therefore, contended that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and consequently, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. 12. Learned counsel for the insurer further submits that 25% of the awarded amount is presently in deposit before the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the amount deposited by the insured, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, has already been withdrawn by the claimant/petitioner. 13. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 03.03.2013 involving two vehicles, namely, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-22/W-8938 and a TATA Ace Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-22/N-7108. It is also not in dispute that the appellant sustained injuries in the said accident. 14. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to enhancement of compensation. The petitioner had claimed that he was employed as an electrical fitter and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in the absence of any documentary or other substantive evidence to establish the said income or occupation, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The claim of the petitioner that he was engaged in electrical fitting work remains unsubstantiated. 15. In such circumstances, where no proof of actual income is forthcoming, it is appropriate to consider notional income. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, in cases relating to motor vehicle accidents occurring in the year 2013, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the petitioner is re-determined at Rs.7,000/-, in place of Rs.6,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal. 16. Insofar as the assessment of disability by the Tribunal is concerned, it has held that the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent functional disability. The petitioner examined one Dr. S.D. Patil, (Orthopaedic Surgeon), who was cited as PW.2. However, PW.2 is not the treating doctor. 16. Insofar as the assessment of disability by the Tribunal is concerned, it has held that the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent functional disability. The petitioner examined one Dr. S.D. Patil, (Orthopaedic Surgeon), who was cited as PW.2. However, PW.2 is not the treating doctor. Though PW.2 has deposed regarding the nature of injuries sustained and the possible discomfort resulting therefrom, he has not specifically opined on the extent of functional disability or the impact of such injuries on the petitioner’s capacity to carry out his avocation. 17. The evidence of PW.2 does not indicate any substantial functional impairment affecting the petitioner’s earning capacity. It is a settled principle that unless the injuries result in a reduction or loss of earning capacity, they cannot be treated as constituting functional disability. In the absence of any cogent evidence to establish that the injuries suffered have diminished the petitioner’s ability to earn his livelihood, the assessment of 10% permanent functional disability as made by the Tribunal is found to be just and proper and does not call for interference. 18. Considering the age of the petitioner as 24 years, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 18'. Accordingly, the loss of future earnings due to disability is re- calculated as follows: Rs.7,000/- x 12 = Rs.84,000/- Rs.84,000 x 10/100 = Rs.8,400/- Rs.8,400/- x 18 = 1,51,200/-. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings during the laid-up period. The records indicate that the petitioner was an inpatient for a period of more than five days and underwent surgical intervention. It cannot be disputed that, post-surgery, the petitioner would have required a period of convalescence, during which he would have been unable to engage in any gainful employment. Reasonably, it can be inferred that the petitioner was deprived of income for at least two additional months following hospitalization. 20. Thus, the total period of loss of earning is assessed at three months. Considering the notional monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, the compensation under the head of 'loss of earning during laid-up period' is re-determined at Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 3 months). 21. The total compensation is recomputed as under: Sl. 20. Thus, the total period of loss of earning is assessed at three months. Considering the notional monthly income at Rs.7,000/-, the compensation under the head of 'loss of earning during laid-up period' is re-determined at Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000/- x 3 months). 21. The total compensation is recomputed as under: Sl. No. Particulars Compensation awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Enhanced compensation (in Rs.) 1 Future loss of earnings due to disability 1,29,600/- 1,51,200/- 2 Loss of earnings during the laid up period 15,000/- 21,000/- 3 Pain and sufferings 60,000/- 60,000/- 4 Loss of amenities 30,000/- 30,000/- 5 Medical expenses 1,20,180/- 1,20,180/- 6 Food and nourishment 15,000/- 15,000/- 7 Conveyance & other sundry expenses 10,000/- 10,000/- Total 3,79,780/- 4,07,380/- 22. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the owner of the insured vehicle was holding a valid driving licence since 1975, which had been renewed up to the year 2008. Though it was contended that the licence had been cancelled in 2008, no cogent evidence was placed on record to substantiate the same. Be that as it may, it is a settled position of law that the mere absence of a driving licence, unless the driver is disqualified from holding or ineligible to obtain one, would not absolve the insurer from its liability to indemnify the insured under a valid insurance policy. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another , [(2018) 3 SCC 208] , and Shamanna and Another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others , (2018) 9 SCC 650 , wherein it has been held that even in the event of a breach of policy conditions, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the insured. In the present case, the principle of 'pay and recover' is applicable with full force. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal directing respondent No.1/insured to pay the compensation is set aside. It is held that respondent No.2–Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1, in accordance with law. 23. Another aspect that requires consideration is with respect to the payment of compensation. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal directing respondent No.1/insured to pay the compensation is set aside. It is held that respondent No.2–Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1, in accordance with law. 23. Another aspect that requires consideration is with respect to the payment of compensation. The owner of the vehicle had preferred an appeal in MFA No.101647/2015, which came to be dismissed as having abated due to his demise during the pendency of the proceedings. Prior to the abatement, by order dated 18.06.2015, this Court had granted stay of the impugned judgment and award, subject to the condition that the insured/owner deposit 50% of the awarded amount. It is submitted that the said amount, as directed, has been duly deposited. 24. In the light of the above discussion, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and award dated 16.04.2025 passed in MVC No.1134/2013 is modified. iii. The total compensation of Rs.3,79,780/- is enhanced to Rs.4,07,380/-. iv. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the remaining amount after taking into consideration the amount deposited by respondent No.1 in MFA No.10647/2015. Such deposit shall be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the said amount.