The insurer is the appellant, which seeks to assail the award, dated 12- 12-2005, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole in O.P.No.204 of 2003 on the premise that it has no liability to pay the compensation and at any rate the direction of the Tribunal that the appellant should pay in the first instance and recover the same later from the owner is not tenable and valid.

2. The first respondent herein is the injured claimant. He preferred the claim for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident that allegedly occurred on 6/7-9-2002 at about midnight when he was sitting on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 F 6550 as a pillion rider, owned by the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant-insurer, being driven by his friend one Jangala Sudheer, at high speed and when the motorcycle reached Ramnagar 10th line, on account of a rikshaw cyclist coming across the road all of a sudden, which resulted in the accident by the motor cycle dashing against the rickshaw, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. According to the claimant, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole and from there he was shifted to Guntur for better treatment and was treated as an inpatient in People's Trauma and Emergency Hospital from 07-09-2002 to 24-09- 2002 and had to spend nearly Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment. His right eye was completely blurred and as such he lost his vision and thus he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. The claim was resisted by the insured and the insurer as well. The case of the first respondent-owner was that the pillion rider was sitting callously without having proper holding and therefore he suddenly fell down and the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. The case of the second respondent-insurer was that the motorcyclist, at the time of the accident, was not having valid and subsisting licence to drive the vehicle and that the compensation claimed was excessive.

4. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues as under:

"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in Motor Vehicle Accident as a pillion rider of motorcycle on account of rash and negligent driving of the Hero-Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No. AP 27 F 6550 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?"

5. At the time of enquiry, three witnesses were examined on the side of the claimant, besides getting Exs.A1 to A11 marked. None was examined on the side of the first respondent-owner and no documentary evidence was adduced. On behalf of the appellant-insurer, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were got marked.

6. Appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 - the claimant and placing reliance upon Exs.A1 to A3, the certified copies of F.I.R.; wound certificate; and charge-sheet respectively, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the accident, in the instant case, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the first respondent. The Tribunal then proceeded to assess the compensation and quantified it at Rs.1,20,000/-, consequently it passed the impugned award granting compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- in favour of the claimant and directed the appellant-insurer to pay in the first instance the compensation and recover the same from the first respondent-owner by filing the necessary execution petition without there being any need to file any separate suit. As aforesaid, it is now being disputed by the appellant-insurer.

7. The learned standing counsel for the appellant represents that since it is clear from the m