THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1891 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the order dated 27.06.2002 in O.P.No.805 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in granting Rs.1,55,000/- as compensation. The claim petition was filed for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries received by the claimant on 06.09.1996 at about 7.00 p.m. when the claimant was going on foot near the old bus stand, Nirmal, the scooter bearing No.AP 25C 1085 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and was treated at Nirmal Government Hospital and suffered disability and loss of earnings. The vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No.2 filed a counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of the allegations in the petition and contending the accident, nature of injuries, age, earnings and treatment of the claimant, and that the rider of the scooter was having a valid driving license and furthermore, the claim is excessive and the same is liable for dismissal. After considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and R.W.1, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- as a lumpsum with interest at 9% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount of compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- granted by the lower Tribunal is excessive and it does not disclose the components of the compensation, which are required to be proved and, therefore, the order has to be set aside. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.3, the petitioner is said to have received a communited protrantic fracture of neck femur of left side and suffered permanent disability at 50% and he was admitted on 07.09.1996 in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad and discharged on 22.10.1996. Exs.A-3 and A-5 are wound certificate and the discharge card respectively. The appellant has not filed any medical bills and the evidence of P.W.3 shows there was possible expenditure for treatment. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, the amount of compensation granted in a lumpsum manner by the lower Tribunal is not proper. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is granted towards the pain and suffering for the grievous injury. The petitioner is said to have in hospital from 07.09.1996 to 22.10.1996 and there seems to be some treatment, therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted for medical expenses and attendant charges. Evidently, there is permanent partial disability due to which the petitioner seems to have lost earning capacity, therefore a sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted for the same. A further sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted towards loss of earnings. Therefore, the total compensation for which the petitioner will be entitled is Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only). In fact, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a compromise for the said amount before the Lok Adalat subject to the confirmation of the liability of the insurance company by producing the license of the driver and the said amount has already been deposited and was withdrawn by the claimant. Therefore, any further decision in the main Original Petition after the matter has been settled and accepted before the Lok Adalat, even if the award is not passed, does not survive for consideration and in fact this was not discussed by the lower Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the evidence of R.W.1 coupled with Exs.B-1 to B-3 shows that the rider of the scooter was not having a valid driving license and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the same. On this aspect, it is to be noted that though the insurance company agreed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- subject to the confirmation of the license, the amount has been deposited without any condition and, therefore, any contest on this aspect shall be deemed to have been waived by the insurance company. But, however, the insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the material on record shows that there was no valid driving license to the rider of the scooter. The plea of waiver as considered herein is not available to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only). With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 26-08-2011 Note: Issue cc in 3 days B/o. MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1891 of 2011 DATE: 26-08-2011 MR