JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall govern disposal of Misc. Appeal Nos. 417/97, 418/97 and 512/97 as they arise out of the same accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 10.4.1995 claimants Mukesh and Ramesh were going on scooter No. M.P. 09-4754 towards Shivaji statute from the office of Public Service Commission, Indore. This scooter was being driven by Mukesh. When they reached near Medical College Hospital, the respondent/non-applicant No. 2 Abdul Aziz came from opposite side driving Ambassador Car No. M.P.F. 1541 belonging to respondent/non-applicant No. 1 Nepal Singh and insured with N.A. No. 3 United India Insurance Company (appellant in M.As. Nos. 417/98 and 418/97) in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter as a result of which Ramesh and Mukesh sustained grievous injuries and became permanently disabled. Applicant-claimant Mukesh filed (M.A. No. 512/97) Claim Case No. 220/95 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,58,000/-. Respondent-claimant Ramesh filed Claim Case No. 219/95 seeking compensation of Rs. 5,60,000/-. The respondent-non-applicants driver Abdul Aziz and owner-Nepal Singh remained absent and were proceeded ex parte. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim and averred that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by Mukesh. It was further pleaded that driver Abdul Aziz had no valid driving licence, therefore, the Insurance Company was not to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record held that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. M.P.F. 1541 by non-applicant No. 2 Abdul Aziz and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,77,000/- to Ramesh and Rs. 1,81,000/- to Mukesh for the injuries sustained by them in the accident to be paid by all the non-applicants. 3. The Insurance Company filed M.As. Nos. 417 and 418 of 1997 against the impugned award and Mukesh filed M.A. No. 512/97 for enhancement of compensation amount. 5. Mr. P.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the burden of proving that the N.A. No. 2 Abdul Aziz had no valid licence was on the Insurance Company. 6. This argument is not acceptable. It is settled law that burden of proving breach of the terms and conditions of the policy lay on the Insurance Company. In both Claim Cases (Nos. 6. This argument is not acceptable. It is settled law that burden of proving breach of the terms and conditions of the policy lay on the Insurance Company. In both Claim Cases (Nos. 219/95 and 220/95) the appellant Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to prove that the driver Abdul Aziz was not holding valid licence. Under such circumstances the Tribunal rightly held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that N.A. No. 2 did not hold valid driving licence. 7. Now we come to the question of adequacy of compensation. Mr. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the Insurance Company could not challenge the quantum of compensation in view of Sermon 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). We considered the arguments of learned Counsel for both sides and perused the record. It is settled that the Insurance Company can take only the defences enumerated in Section 149(2) of the Act and in view of Section 149(2) it cannot challenge the compensation amount. Even otherwise the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants in both cases cannot be said to be on higher side. The Tribunal discussed evidence in detail and hold that the leg of Ramesh was amputated from above knee and awarded Rs. 51,022/- for medical treatment and on the basis of the medical bills/vouchers Rs. 3,587/- for special diet and Rs. 1,875/- for ambulance and transportation charges and Rs. 39,000/- at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month for loss of income for the period of 13 months during which Ramesh underwent his treatment and was absent from his duties and Rs. 80,000/- for permanent disability of his leg which was assessed by Dr. Dharmendra Tiwari at 85%. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that amount of compensation of Rs. 1,77,000/- is on higher side. Thus M.A. No. 418/97 has no substance. 8. In Claim Case No. 220/95 the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,81,000/-. Appellant Mukesh has filed M.A. No. 512/97 for enhancement of compensation while Insurance Company has filed M.A. No. 417/97 for reduction of the compensation amount. Mr. Rajpal submitted that compensation of Rs. 1,81,000/- is on lower side. He submitted that right leg of the appellant was shortened by 2 inches and knee movements were also affected. He suffered 75% permanent disability. On the other hand Mr. Mr. Rajpal submitted that compensation of Rs. 1,81,000/- is on lower side. He submitted that right leg of the appellant was shortened by 2 inches and knee movements were also affected. He suffered 75% permanent disability. On the other hand Mr. Dandwate learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the amount of Rs. 1,81,000/- is on higher side. 9. In our opinion the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,81,000/- is just and reasonable and not call for interference. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the vouchers/receipts of the medicines purchased and nursing home charges paid by the claimant Mukesh, Rs. 3,586/- special diet, Rs. 1,875/- for travelling charges and Rs. 39,000/- for loss of income for 13 months as the claimant remained on leave for his treatment. His monthly salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month. This amount cannot be said to be on lower side. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 80,000/- for permanent disability suffered by Mukesh in his right left. It was shortened by 2 inches and movement of right knee were also affected. Disability was assessed by Dr. Dharmendra Tiwari at 75% was not reduced nor the chances of promotions were affected. Under such circumstances the amount of Rs. 80,000/- appears to be reasonable and proper for the disability. In the result, M.A. Nos. 417/97, 418/97 and 512/97 are dismissed. No order as to costs. This judgment shall be retained in M.A.No. 417/97 and its copies be kept in M.A. Nos. 418/97 and 512/97.