HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3366 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order in M.V.O.P.No.486 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, where-under a claim was made for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 18.08.2003 he boarded the auto bearing No.AP 5U 8922 to come from Samalkot and on the way due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, it dashed to the bridge, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is Insurance Company and they are jointly liable for payment of the compensation. 3. The Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein, filed a counter disputing the nature of the incident, nature of the liability and also further contended that the driver of the auto was not having valid licence, consequently the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal below has granted a compensation of Rs.95,264/- and directed the appellant to pay and it can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is excessive? 5. POINT: There is no dispute about the nature of the incident and also the particulars of the injuries received by the petitioner. According to the evidence of PW.1, which is supported by PW.2, who was the Casuality Medical Officer at Rangaraya Medical College, the petitioner was examined by PW.2 on 18.08.2003 at 6.00 A.M., and the petitioner has received three injuries. As per the X-ray, there was fracture of femur, tibia and fibula. He also opined that there was some disability. PW.3, who conducted operation, deposed that two surgeries were said to have been conducted on the petitioner i.e., one on 08.09.2003 and another on 25.09.2003 and the petitioner was said to be in hospital from 18.08.2003 to 15.10.2003 for nearly two months. He opined that there is a disability of 10%. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the injuries including pain and suffering and further granted a sum of Rs.8,850/- towards loss of earnings and granted a sum of Rs.6,414/- towards extra nourishment and transport and also granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- for permanent disability. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the composition of the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is not correct. Evidently, it has to be noted that the petitioner was a rickshaw puller and injuries said to have been received by him are fracture of the femur, tibia and fibula, which are very vital parts for the job on which the petitioner was employed. Therefore, taking into consideration the three fractures, mental agony and also particularly of the fact that he was in hospital for nearly two months without granting any other expenditure towards medical expenses or attendance, the lower Tribunal has granted a consolidated sum of Rs.50,000/-, which I do not think is excessive. So also the disability was also taken into consideration by the lower Tribunal and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was granted. Evidently, the fact that the petitioner was in hospital for two months and consequently, he cannot take up the job at least temporarily for a longer time has to be taken into consideration. It may a temporary partial disability but it has got its own effect to do his regular duties and employment. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has taken a reasonable view and granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards disability, which was partially supported by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. Taking into consideration the status of the claimant and his nature of living and the manner, in which he suffered in the incident, it cannot be said that the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is excessive. It can be said to be fair and realistic. 8. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, no doubt the evidence of RW.1 shows that the driver of the vehicle was having only a non-transport licence, whereas he is said to be driving a transport vehicle. It is to be noted as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh[1], wherein it was held that so far as the liability to third parties is concerned, when the driver of the vehicle is having one type of licence and drives another vehicle, the Insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability for violation of the conditions of licence. The lower Tribunal has also granted only interest at 7.5% per annum which cannot be said to be excessive. I find that there are no merits warranting for interference of the award of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:09.12.2011 INL [1] 2004 ACJ 1