JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant has filed the appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 13.12.1996 in Claim Case No. 9/1996 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam, wherein the amount of Rs. 29,000.00 was awarded to the claimant against respondent No. 1 and 2 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.6.1994. The case of the claimant is that on 15.12.1993 at about 6.00 p.m. near Village Jharbardiya when the claimant. was going on road, the Ambassador car No. CPO-362 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 collided from the front side and in the accident the claimant was received the fracture in his right leg and also the injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body. That the claimant was treated in the various hospitals and he has incurred the medical expenses of more than 50,000.00 rupees. That the claimant is a labourer and on account of his permanent disability, he was unable to earn the amount of Rs. 1,000.00 per month. Respondents No.1 and 2 have proceeded ex parte and respondent No. 3 has pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving licence and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. The claimant has alleged that the amount of compensation is on lower side; That the Insurance Company was wrongly exonerated. It is not disputed that the driver of the car was having the learning licence at the relevant time. It is held by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others [ 2005(1) JLJ 85 = 2004(1) ACJ 1 (SC)] that the learning licence is a valid licence and the driver is entitled to drive the vehicle on the basis of the learning licence. The 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 the 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 the 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 the learner's licence. In these circumstances the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that driver was having learner's licence at the relevant time. 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 has received the fracture of the femur bone of his right thigh and he, was treated and hospitalized at Alot then at Jaora and thereafter at Ratlam and also at Indore and Baroda. The claimant has received the compound fracture. The doctor has opined that the permanent disability to the claimant was to the extent of 8 to 10%. In the aforesaid backdrop, the amount of Rs. 5,000.00 provided by the 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. 20,000.00 in his treatment. The claimant has received the treatment in various places and the treatment was prolong.· As such the amount of Rs. 2,000.00 for the physical and mental agony and Rs. 2,000.00 for the special diet are also inadequate and it is enhanced to Rs. 4,500.00 and Rs. 4,500.00. The amount of Rs. 20,000.00 was provided to the claimant for the permanent disability which is proper as disability is only 8 to 10%. Thus, the amount of compensation is enhanced from 29,000.00 to Rs. 49,000.00. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. All the respondents will jointly and severally pay the amount of Rs. 49,000.00 to the claimant. The interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of the claim on the enhanced amount of Rs. 20,000.00 will be. paid by the Respondents. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.