A. K. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-claimanl has filed the appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 13. 12. 1996 in Claim Case no. 9 of 1996 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ratlam, wherein the amount of Rs. 29,000 was awarded to the claimant against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 22. 6. 1994. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimant is that on 15. 12. 1993 at about 6 p. m. near village jharbardiya when the claimant was going on road, Ambassador car No. CPO 362 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 collided from the front side and in the accident the claimant has received the fracture in his right leg and also the injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body. That claimant was treated in various hospitals and he has incurred the medical expenses of more than Rs. 50,000. That claimant is a labourer and on account of his permanent disability, he was unable to earn the amount of Rs. 1,000 per month. ( 3 ) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have proceeded e. x parte and respondent No. 3 has pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. ( 4 ) THE claimant has alleged that the amount of compensation is on lower side. That the insurance company was wrongly exonerated. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the driver of the car was having learner's licence at the relevant time. It is held by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), that learner's licence is a valid licence and the driver is entitled to drive the vehicle on the basis of the learner's licence. Insurance company has not proved that the driver has not displayed the required 'l' mark on the conspicuous part of the car and that the driver was not accompanied with another driver having valid licence. The insurance company in the written statement has not pleaded that the terms of the policy was infringed on account of the fact that the driver was having learner's licence. The insurance company in the written statement has not pleaded that the terms of the policy was infringed on account of the fact that the driver was having learner's licence. In these circumstances learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance com-pany on the ground that driver was having learner's licence at the relevant time. ( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal on the basis of the statements of Omprakash, PW 1, Dr. Anil Sinha, PW 2, Dr. C. L. Verma, PW 3 and Dr. B. L. Chaturvedi, PW 4, has rightly held that the claimant received fracture of the femur bone of his right thigh and he was treated and hospitalised at Alot, then at Jaora and thereafter at Ratlam and also at Indore and Baroda. The claimant has received compound fracture. The doctor has opined that the permanent disability to the claimant was to the extent of 8 to 10 per cent. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid backdrop, amount of Rs. 5,000 provided by learned Tribunal for the expenses of the treatment is less and inadequate. No reasons exist to disbelieve the statement of the claimant that he has incurred the expenses of Rs. 20,000 in his treatment. The claimant has received treatment in various places and the treatment was prolonged. As such, the amounts of rs. 2,000 for physical pain and mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards special diet are also inadequate and are enhanced to rs. 4,500 and Rs. 4,500. The amount of rs. 20,000 was provided to claimant for the permanent disability which is proper as disability is only 8 to 10 per cent. Thus, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 29,000 to Rs. 49,000. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is partly allowed. All respondents will jointly and severally pay the amount of Rs. 49,000 to the claimant. Interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the claim on the enhanced amount of Rs. 20,000 will be paid by respondents. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. Appeal partly allowed. .