IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'pay and recover' in case of third-party risks and the requirement for the insurer to prove the driver's lack of a valid driving license and breach of policy conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. As all these appeals filed by the Insurance Company arise out of same accident that took place on 18.11.2012, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. As per averments made in the claim petition on 18.11.2012, injured persons namely Dharmendra Gajalwar, wife-Sushma Gajalwar along with their minor daughter-Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar were returning to their home on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG04-CX-9488. However, on the way, non-applicant No.1 Sanjay Tandi / driver of the Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG04-KA-1604 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle) by riding the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said motorcycle of claimants, as a result of which, claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries over their bodies. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2- Shyam Tandi and insured with non-applicant No.3- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

3. On account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Dharmendra Gajalwar, a Claim Petition No.95/2014 was filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Dharmendra Gajalwar, was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.23,250/- per month by working as Deputy Manager Commercial in Uniworth Company. However, the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., vide impugned award dated 22.01.2016, after considering the evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- to the claimant- Dharmendra Gajalwar with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

Similarly, on account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Sushma Gajalwar, a Claim Petition No.97/2014 was filed by her under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.4,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Sushma Gajalwar, was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing stitching work. However, the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., vide impugned award dated 22.01.2016, after considering the evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.31,500/- to the claimant- Sushma Gajalwar with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

Likewise, on account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar, a Claim Petition No.96/2014 was filed by her through legal guardian under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar, was aged about 11 years and was studying in class 7th. However, the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., vide impugned award dated 22.01.2016, after considering the evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant-Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that he is not challenging the quantum part, but confines his argument only to liability part. He submits that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to ride the offending vehicle, which is a fundamental breach of p