JUDGMENT :

N. Kirubakaran, J.

1. A sad and cruel accident took away of the life of a lady(deceased) which was witnessed by her husband and son. On 07.08.2010 at about 7.30 p.m., when the first respondent's wife, namely, Pushpa was walking along with her husband and son in Veerapandi-Theni main road, at that time, a mini door van belonging to the third respondent insured with the appellant, driven rash and negligently, hit the lady causing her death. Therefore, a claim petition. On contest, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the mini door van and determined the compensation of Rs. 5,34,360/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the Insurance Company.

2. Heard Mr. C. Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N. Mariappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/Claimants.

3. Mr. C. Jawahar Ravindran, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal ordered "pay and recovery" in spite of proving the fact that the driver of the mini door van did not possess valid driving licence and therefore "pay and recovery" should not have been ordered.

4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Mariappan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants would submit that the amount awarded is too low. Therefore, it needs to be enhanced.

5. The case of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was aged about 22 years, working as coolie and earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the mini door van was driven rash and negligently and the deceased was knocked down by the vehicle causing death to her and therefore, they are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is contended by the appellant/Insurance Company that there was no valid driving licence possessed by the mini door van driver at the time of accident. The first respondent/husband who was present in the accident spot, deposed that the mini door van was driven by its driver rash and negligently and knocked down his wife and a First Information Report had been filed in Crime No. 532 of 2010 under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. Ex. P.4 charge sheet(final report) with regard to the accident was also filed against the driver of the mini door van. Based on P.W. 1's evidence and filing of the First Information Report and charge sheet against the driver of the mini door van, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini door van.

6. The appellant/Insurance Company further contended that there are no details regarding the driving licence of the driver in Ex. P.3 Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Since the mini door van is a goods carriage vehicle, it requires a driving licence with badge to be possessed by the driver whereas he does not have badge which is a violation of policy conditions. The appellant/Insurance Company examined R.W. 1, an official from R.T.O., office, Theni, to prove that as on 07.08.2010, the driver Easwaran did not possess the badge for the purpose of driving goods carriage. The Tribunal also categorically found that the vehicle was driven by its driver without badge which is a violation of policy conditions and rightly ordered "pay and recovery" as per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC Page 542, in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune Vs. P. Manimozhi and others, which declares that where there is a violation of policy condition, pay and recovery has to be ordered. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the liability should be absolved and pay and recovery should not have been ordered, as the liability is to be rejected.

7. Usually this Court would not venture into decide the other issues, when the issue is not raised in the appeal. As the appeal arises out of the Motor Vehicles Ac