JUDGMENT : This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the injured claimant assailing the award dated 17.11.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in O.P.No.55 of 2008. 2. B.Sanjaiah Gandhi, the learned counsel for appellant, Sri T.Ravi Teja, the learned counsel representing Smt. A.Jayanthi, the learned counsel for respondent No.2- Oriential Insurance Company Limited submitted arguments. Respondent No.1 was served with notice, but none entered appearance. 3. The injured claimant seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- laid his claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru. First respondent therein was the owner-cum-driver of the offending auto rickshaw. The second respondent therein was the insurance company. After due contest, the award was passed in the following terms: “In the result, the claim petition is partly allowed for granting compensation of Rs.54,500/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred only) to the petitioner along with costs and interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization from 1 st respondent only. 2 nd Respondent is discharged from its liability. The driver- cum-owner/R.1 is directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month along with costs and interest from the date of Order of this tribunal. On such deposit petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire awarded compensation amount along with costs and interest accrued thereon. Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on awarded amount, if the petition was dismissed for any reason, till the date the petition was restored. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only).” 4. In this appeal filed by the claimant, the following points fall for consideration: 1. Whether the Claims Tribunal committed an error in stating that it was a case of contributory negligence? 2. Whether the compensation awarded is not only unjust but also is against the material on record? 3. Whether the Claims Tribunal committed an error in exonerating the liability of the insurance company which on facts it ought to have at least ordered the insurance company to pay first and recover later? 5. 2. Whether the compensation awarded is not only unjust but also is against the material on record? 3. Whether the Claims Tribunal committed an error in exonerating the liability of the insurance company which on facts it ought to have at least ordered the insurance company to pay first and recover later? 5. Learned counsel on both sides made their arguments on the above points and therefore, these points are to be addressed in this appeal. POINT No.1 : Whether the Claims Tribunal committed an error in stating that it was a case of contributory negligence? 6. An auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 37 W 6537 was going on road on 15.10.2007 and it reached Gopalapuram Village along the State Highway, and it was at about 3:00 P.M. the person driving this auto rickshaw without giving any signals, all of a sudden swerved the vehicle towards right side to go to a petrol bunk to have refueling. The appellant/claimant who was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 37 AL 2544 was behind this auto rickshaw and by the sudden swerving of the auto rickshaw towards right side he could not control his motorbike and went and dashed the auto rickshaw and consequently the motorbike fell down and he suffered injuries and the auto rickshaw fell down and the driver of the auto rickshaw suffered injuries. It was in such facts and circumstances; the claim petition was placed before the Claims Tribunal. 7. Sri Maganti Nageswara Rao, who was the owner-cum- driver of the auto rickshaw filed his counter stating that he was not at fault and since a buffalo came on to the road to avert any harm he slightly turned his auto rickshaw towards right side and the claimant out of his rash or negligent driving came and dashed his auto rickshaw and therefore for the injuries suffered by the claimant fault cannot be attributed against the auto rickshaw and its driver. He prayed for dismissal of the claim. 8. The insurance company filed its counter raising various contentions. 9. As per the record, soon after this incident the owner-cum- driver of the auto rickshaw went and lodged a written information with police and Crime No.118 of 2007 was registered by Gopalapuram Police Station as per Ex.A.1. The investigating officer thoroughly investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet/Ex.A.2. 8. The insurance company filed its counter raising various contentions. 9. As per the record, soon after this incident the owner-cum- driver of the auto rickshaw went and lodged a written information with police and Crime No.118 of 2007 was registered by Gopalapuram Police Station as per Ex.A.1. The investigating officer thoroughly investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet/Ex.A.2. A perusal of the charge sheet disclosed that the fault was not on part of the rider of the motorbike and the entire fault was on part of the owner-cum-driver of the auto rickshaw. It is mentioned that the owner-cum-driver of the auto rickshaw had lodged a false information with it and on due investigation it found nothing to support the version of the auto rickshaw driver about buffalo crossing etc. The investigative conclusion leading to filing of the charge sheet for prosecution of him indicated that the entire blame was on the driver-cum-owner of the auto rickshaw. The claimant testified as PW.1. He deposed all the facts he pleaded in his claim petition. The owner-cum-driver did not question him in cross. The owner-cum-driver did not enter the witness box. RW.1 and RW.2 were examined on behalf of the insurance company and both were not witnesses to the incident. It was all this evidence that was available before the Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal having noted that it read all this material stated that to him it appeared very clearly that the accident was a result of rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of auto rickshaw as well as the claimant who was driving the motorcycle. It is that aspect of the matter that fell for consideration in this appeal. 10. Contributory negligence is a legal principle that applies to motor vehicle accidents where the injured party’s own negligence contributed to the accident. Thus, the contributory negligence is the failure of an injured party to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, which contributed to the accident. In those cases where the injured claimant was faced with a sudden emergency and reacted reasonably, it is difficult to say that he contributed anything for the cause of accident. On the other hand, if the opposite party had the last clear chance to avoid accident but failed to do so, then he must be liable to shoulder the entire burden. On the other hand, if the opposite party had the last clear chance to avoid accident but failed to do so, then he must be liable to shoulder the entire burden. In the light of these standard principles, the evidence available on record should be appreciated. The evidence of PW.1/appellant/claimant and the investigative outcome of the State Police clearly point out that the auto rickshaw while going at high speed on the State Highway the driver of it/respondent No.1- Sri Maganti Nageswara Rao turned the vehicle towards right side to go to petrol bunk. He did so without giving any caution to the other commuters of the road. Thus, in his hurry to go to petrol bunk, he swerved the vehicle without any caution and that led to the motorist to dash the auto rickshaw on its side. The auto rickshaw driver was well within his competence to slow down the speed of his vehicle and give appropriate caution indicating that he was to take his vehicle towards the right side. He did not do so. The material does not indicate any other fact preventing him from doing so. Thus, he failed to exercise reasonable care and caution. That was the cause of the accident. As per the evidence the motorbike did not dash on the back of the auto rickshaw, but he dashed on the side of the auto rickshaw. It is only because of dashing it on the side the auto rickshaw fell down. Had the motorbike dashed on the back side of the auto rickshaw going by its weight there was no possibility for the auto rickshaw to turn turtle. The motorbike being driven by the appellant could not be blamed because the evidence does not indicate the possibility of any preventive action that could have been taken by the motorist. In such circumstances, this Court is of the clear view that the fault of the accident lies on the shoulders of the auto rickshaw driver and the appellant did not contribute in any manner for this accident or the injuries sustained by him. The contrary observations made by the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the appellant. POINT No.2: Whether the compensation awarded is not only unjust but also is against the material on record? 11. The contrary observations made by the Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the appellant. POINT No.2: Whether the compensation awarded is not only unjust but also is against the material on record? 11. In the cause title of the claim petition filed before the Claims Tribunal the appellant/claimant disclosed his age as 50 years and his occupation as a Sales Tax Accountant. He gave evidence as PW.1. He deposed that in private shops he attends such work, and he had about 20 customers and each customer normally pays him Rs.500/-. He claimed to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month. During the enquiry, the questions came up about the truth of his efforts especially with reference to his income. Therefore, he moved applications which were allowed and accordingly he produced Exs.A.9 to A.12. They were income tax returns from 2007-2008 to 2010-2011. The Claims Tribunal recorded these aspects. However, the entire impugned award does not even whisper as to in which manner the learned Claims Tribunal considered these income tax returns. It is a clear case where it discarded all that valuable evidence. The claimant got examined one of his customers who testified as PW.2. There was nitpicking on part of the Claims Tribunal and it took the view that there were contradictions between the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of PW.2 and the major contradiction is that while the claimant contended that he was sales tax accountant the evidence disclosed that he was accountant for private shopkeepers. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly argued that the shops or the places where sales were held and accounts were maintained and therefore, the claimant who was attending those works styled himself as sales tax accountant. This could not be countered in any manner by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the major discrepancy felt by the Claims Tribunal is discrepancy that was non-existent. The Claims Tribunal clearly committed an error in this regard. Influenced by this perceived discrepancy it decided to record that there were only 12 customers for the claimant/appellant and therefore, assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the major discrepancy felt by the Claims Tribunal is discrepancy that was non-existent. The Claims Tribunal clearly committed an error in this regard. Influenced by this perceived discrepancy it decided to record that there were only 12 customers for the claimant/appellant and therefore, assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. This Court having considered the entire material on record holds that in terms of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and the income tax returns and the absence of any tangible contrary evidence, the claimant by the time of this incident was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. 12. The evidence of PW.1 indicated that he suffered various injuries including two grievous injuries. Ex.A.3 is the wound certificate, Ex.A.7 is a bunch of prescriptions and medical bills, Ex.A.5 is a cash receipt issued by Sidhardha Orthopedic Hospital and Poly Clinic, Rajahmundry. PW.3 and PW.4 are the doctors. PW.4 issued Ex.A.8-disability certificate. PW.3 is the doctor who treated the appellant/claimant. As per the evidence, PW.1 was first taken to Government Hospital, Kovvur where first aid was administered and immediately he was shifted to Sidhardha Orthopedic Hospital and Poly Clinic, Rajahmundry where he was in-patient from 15.10.2007 to 10.11.2007. As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 there was surgery conducted to his left leg and steel rods and nails were inserted. As per the evidence of PW.3 and the evidence of PW.1, the claimant also suffered head injury. Through PW.3-the doctor the crucial documents such as Ex.A.5 and A.7 were approved. Through the evidence of PW.4-the doctor Ex.A.8-disability certificate was proved. The evidence of PW.3-the doctor is that the injured required further surgery for removal of rods and nails that were inserted. No contrary medical record was brought into evidence by the contesting respondents. No contrary medical opinion was brought to the appreciation of the Claims Tribunal. In the context of the above facts and the evidence that was made available, appropriate compensation under various heads were to be granted. Ex.A.5 disclosed claimant expending Rs.69,000/- towards actual medical expenses. The Claims Tribunal rightly granted it and no interference is called for. At paragraph No.17(a) the learned Claims Tribunal observed that for a period of two months/from 15.10.2007 to 14.12.2007 the claimant/appellant was unable to attend his actual work. As it assessed monthly income at Rs.6,000/- it granted Rs.12,000/- towards actual loss of earnings. The Claims Tribunal rightly granted it and no interference is called for. At paragraph No.17(a) the learned Claims Tribunal observed that for a period of two months/from 15.10.2007 to 14.12.2007 the claimant/appellant was unable to attend his actual work. As it assessed monthly income at Rs.6,000/- it granted Rs.12,000/- towards actual loss of earnings. Since this Court has found Rs.10,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant/claimant, he is entitled for Rs.20,000/- for two months loss of earnings and thus an additional amount of Rs.8,000/- is granted. The learned Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges and an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothing and articles. They are found to be reasonable and no interference is needed. Towards pain and suffering it granted Rs.25,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal did not grant anything towards future medical expenses. This Court having considered the entire evidence on record finds that towards possible future medical expenses the claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.25,000/-. Thus, an amount of Rs.33,000/- in addition to what was granted by the Claims Tribunal is found to meet the ends of justice. Hence, this point is answered accordingly. POINT No.3: Whether the Claims Tribunal committed an error in exonerating the liability of the insurance company which on facts it ought to have at least ordered the insurance company to pay first and recover later? 13. The evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 and Ex.X.1 disclosed that the offending owner-cum-driver did not possess any driving licence whatsoever. As per Ex.B.1 he got his auto rickshaw insured and the policy of insurance was effective by the time of accident. Observing that the owner-cum-driver did not have valid and effective driving licence, the learned Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from all the liability. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that in view of the fact that the offending vehicle was validly insured the Claims Tribunal ought to have invoked the doctrine of pay and recovery and cited Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2019) 7 SCC 217 . That was a case of an automobile accident where the drivers of the two offending vehicles did not possess any driving licences. After considering the precedent and the question that comes up in third party claims their Lordships were pleased to hold that even in such cases the doctrine of pay and recovery could be granted. That was a case of an automobile accident where the drivers of the two offending vehicles did not possess any driving licences. After considering the precedent and the question that comes up in third party claims their Lordships were pleased to hold that even in such cases the doctrine of pay and recovery could be granted. Nothing contrary is brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court the compensation that is to be paid to the appellant/claimant has to be paid by respondent No.2-insurance company in the first instance and by virtue of this award itself the insurance company is to be permitted to execute this award as against respondent No.1 and recover what was paid. Hence, this point is answered accordingly. 14. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award dated 17.11.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru in O.P.No.55 of 2008 fixing liability on the appellant/claimant and respondent No.1 is modified. The compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.1,09,000/- to Rs.1,42,000/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the claim amount within one month from the date of this judgment. The second respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the amount to the claimant in the first instance and later recover the same from the first respondent by filing an execution petition without there being any need for filing any suit. On such a deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.