Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been filed by the owner aggrieved by an award dated 4-2-2004 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul passed in Claim Case No. 70/03. ( 2. ) ON account of injuries sustained by Sanjay, aged 9 years, claim petition was preferred before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 16,06,000/ -. The claimant has incurred disability to the extent of 20%, he suffered fracture of femur of his left leg. The claimant was initially admitted at Ghodadongri Hospital and then referred to Padhar Hospital, he remained admitted for 15 days, surgery was performed, rod was inserted, six months bed rest was advised, consequently an attendant had to be engaged, an offence was registered against the driver cum owner Shri Hardayal under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC at Crime No. 107/03. The claimant was student of Class IVth at the relevant time, he was unable to appear in the examination, his future has been darkened consequently the claim petition was preferred. ( 3. ) THE owner in the written statement contended that he was driving motor cycle at slow speed. The claimant was crossing the road, all of a sudden, he came in front of motorcycle, he was not negligent, in any case vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Liability, if any, was that of insurer. ( 4. ) THE insurer in the written statement contended that excessive compensation has been claimed, driver was not having valid and effective driving licence as such insurer was not liable to make indemnification. ( 5. ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that permanent disability to the extent of 20% has been incurred, there was likelihood of improvement by 5-7% in the extent of disability. Total compensation of Rs. 57,657/- has been awarded. On account of disability a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, towards medical expenditure a sum of Rs. 16,357/-, for mental pain and physical suffering a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, for expenditure on attendant a sum of Rs. 1300/- and for loss of academic year as the claimant could not appear in Class IVth examination a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 5,000/-, for expenditure on attendant a sum of Rs. 1300/- and for loss of academic year as the claimant could not appear in Class IVth examination a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The insurer has been exonerated from making payment of compensation on the ground that though the owner held the licence, however, it was not renewed, it was renewed subsequently, licence was issued in the year 1984, accident, took place on 25-3-03, liability has been saddled on owner cum driver to make payment of compensation, consequently this appeal has been preferred by the owner. Claimant has also filed cross objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. ( 6. ) I have heard the learned Counsel for parties at length. ( 7. ) THE first question for consideration is whether the insurer can be said to be liable to make payment of compensation. It is clear that owner was having licence which was issued in July, 1984, it was renewed time to time, however, it stood lapsed as on the date of accident is not in dispute, the fact is also not in dispute that subsequently it was renewed in the same very year after few months of the accident. Driver cum owner has incurred any disability to drive is not the case set up by the insurer nor any disqualification has been found, licence has been renewed. The owner has stated that he had given the licence for the purpose of renewal on the date of accident. Whatever that may be renewal has been made subsequently and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has incurred any disqualification. ( 8. ) A Single Bench of this Court in Kalyan Singh and Anr. v. Sadarani and Anr. 2001 ACJ1758 , has considered the matter in similar circumstances, it has been held thus: 6. It is clear from the evidence on record in shape of Exh. D-2 on record that the appellant No. 2 was holding a valid licence from 23-7-1987 to 22-7-1990 and, thereafter, the licence was renewed as per the document Exh. D-4, for the period 29-7-1991 up to 28-7-1994. It is clear from the evidence on record in shape of Exh. D-2 on record that the appellant No. 2 was holding a valid licence from 23-7-1987 to 22-7-1990 and, thereafter, the licence was renewed as per the document Exh. D-4, for the period 29-7-1991 up to 28-7-1994. Therefore, initially, the appellant No. 2 was holding an effective licence for driving the concerned tractor which caused the accident. It is true that on the date of accident, the licence was not renewed. It was renewed subsequently as already stated. In the light of the above facts, it is necessary to construe the condition on which the insurance company would be liable. The concerned condition has been mentioned in the insurance policy, Exh. D-l, as follows: Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive - Any of the following: (a) The insured (b) Any other person who is driving on the insureds order or with his permission. Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category or motor vehicle insured hereunder. It is clear from the proviso to the above condition (b) that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicle insured in the policy. This means that even if a person is holding licence in the past that would also be covered by the proviso aforesaid. The only condition is that the person holding licence should not have been disqualified from holding an effective licence in the meanwhile. It is clear that appellant No. 2 was earlier holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive a tractor insured. Subsequently, this licence was renewed showing that the appellant No. 2 was not disqualified from holding the licence. It is clear that appellant No. 2 was earlier holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive a tractor insured. Subsequently, this licence was renewed showing that the appellant No. 2 was not disqualified from holding the licence. The only lacuna was that the licence was left unrenewed for some time but this would not be taken into consideration in exonerating the insurance company because the insurance company itself says that it will be liable if the person concerned had held the licence. On facts the aforesaid decision is similar. ( 9. ) A Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hira Tripathi and Ors. 2001 (1) M. P. H. T. 221, has also held that once the licence is renewed and disqualification has not been incurred by the driver, insurer cannot escape the liability though the fact that licence stood lapsed was not in the knowledge of the owner is distinguishable in the instant case, but the fact remains that disqualification has not been found to have been incurred by the owner cum driver. It cannot be said to be a substantial breach so as to exonerate the owner from making payment of compensation. Decision of this Court in Purshottam and Anr. v. Pyarelal and Anr. 2005 ACJ1580 , rendered by a Single Bench has been relied upon by Ms. A. Ruprah. In the aforesaid decision question of renewal was not involved, effect of renewal has not been considered or placed for consideration as such the decision is distinguishable on facts. ( 10. ) MS. A. Ruprah has submitted that the renewal application was not presented within 30 days from the date of expiry, the driving licence could have been renewed with effect from the date of its renewal, thus, it is clear from the proviso that in case application has not been filed within limitation of 30 days, there is no renewal of licence with retrospective effect. The owner has clearly stated that he had given the licence for the purpose of renewal to the agent, agent died in a railway accident, when application was filed is not clear, it is clear that owner had taken steps for renewal of licence, in any view of the matter in view of the decision of this Court in Kalyan Singh and Anr. v. Sadarani and Anr. (supra), I do not find any ground to take a different view, no case for exonerating the insurer is made out. Thus, in the instant case, I find that insurer cannot escape the liability to make payment of compensation. ( 11. ) COMING to the question of quantum of compensation, it is clear that fracture in left leg was sustained by the claimant, he has incurred disability to the extent of 20%, there was likelihood of improvement by 5-7% by physiotherapy as deposed to by Dr. Satish Khandelwal. The Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 57,657/-, affirming the award under the of her heads, in my opinion, if a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) is awarded to the appellant for the disability which has been incurred, interest of justice would not suffer. Thus, total amount comes to Rs. 77,657/- (Rupees Seventy seven thousand six hundred and fifty seven only ). The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. Liability is held to be joint and several of owner and insurer to make payment of compensation. ( 12. ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.