Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 31.3.2006 passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Jobat in Claim Case No. 155 of 2004, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries was allowed and a sum of Rs. 79,500 was awarded and respondent No. 3 was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) Short facts of the case are that the appellant, who is a girl aged 14 years at the time of accident filed a claim petition alleging that on 20.10.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. when appellant was going to collect the scholarship with her friends at that time a bus bearing registration No. GJ 17-T 1897, owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with respondent No. 3 dashed the appellant, with the result appellant sustained grievous injuries at the ankle point of her left leg and fell down. It was alleged that appellant was hospitalised, where the appellant was operated. Permanent disability caused to the appellant was 40 per cent. It was prayed that compensation be awarded. ( 3. ) The claim petition was contested by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by filing separate written statement. ( 4. ) After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 79,500, break-up of which is as under: ( 5. ) It was further held by the learned Tribunal that since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not possessing valid permit, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. However, it was directed that respondent No. 3 shall deposit the amount payable to appellant with a right of recovery from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which can be withdrawn by the appellant after furnishing the security by respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded and also with the direction to respondent No. 2 to furnish the security before disbursement of payment to the appellant, the present appeal has been filed. ( 6. ) Mr. Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was a young unmarried girl aged 14 years at the time of accident. ( 6. ) Mr. Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was a young unmarried girl aged 14 years at the time of accident. It is submitted that appellant was hospitalised from 20.10.2004 to 28.11.2004 at Civil Hospital, Alirajpur, where the appellant was operated and skin grafting took place. It is submitted that there was permanent disability up to the extent of 40 per cent, which has wrongly been held by the learned Tribunal as 30 per cent. It is further submitted that disfiguration and adverse impact of marriage prospects has not been at all considered by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3. It is submitted that in a case where offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, the exoneration is only on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not possessing valid permit on the date of accident. It is submitted that the date of accident is 20.10.2004 and the requisite fee was deposited by respondent No. 2 on 6.10.2004 for obtaining the permit, while the permit was effective from 21.10.2004 to 31.10.2004. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal in imposing a condition that the amount should not be disbursed to the appellant till security is furnished by the respondent No. 2. ( 7. ) Mrs. Rekha Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case for enhancement is made out. So far as exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned, learned counsel submits that since offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3. It is submitted that so far as grant of permit is concerned, section 66 deals with such situation. It is submitted that as per sub-section (3) (p) of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no permit is required in case when the vehicle is proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of repairing. It is submitted that so far as grant of permit is concerned, section 66 deals with such situation. It is submitted that as per sub-section (3) (p) of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no permit is required in case when the vehicle is proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of repairing. Learned counsel submits that in the case in hand enough evidence is on record to prove that the offending vehicle was empty and was going for repairing and this evidence was not rebutted by the respondent No. 3. ( 8. ) Mr. V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that cross- objection has been filed by the respondent No. 3 against the findings, whereby learned Tribunal has directed the respondent No. 3 to pay and recover the amount from respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel submits that since the offending vehicle was not having valid permit on the date of accident, therefore, the respondent No. 3 could not have been directed to deposit the amount. It is submitted that it is only respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who could have been directed to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel submits that so far as amount of compensation is concerned looking to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case for enhancement is made out. ( 9. ) From perusal of the record it appears that in an injury case, where the appellant is a young unmarried girl aged 14 years has sustained grievous injuries and also permanent disability of which the photographs are on record, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the compensation. The appellant is entitled for the following amount: Towards medical expenses Rs. 10,000 Towards expenses incurred on attendants Rs. 5,000 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 10,000 Towards permanent disability Rs. 70,000 Towards special diet Rs. 5,000 Towards loss of study when the appellant was under treatment Rs. 10,000 Towards loss of marriage prospects Rs. 25,000 Towards transport expenses Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 1,40,000 ( 10. ) So far as liability of respondent No. 3 is concerned, section 66 deals with the necessity of permit. Section 66 (1) reads as under: "66. 5,000 Towards loss of study when the appellant was under treatment Rs. 10,000 Towards loss of marriage prospects Rs. 25,000 Towards transport expenses Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 1,40,000 ( 10. ) So far as liability of respondent No. 3 is concerned, section 66 deals with the necessity of permit. Section 66 (1) reads as under: "66. Necessity for permits.-(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him." ( 11. ) As per sub-section (3) of section 66 provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in number of circumstances which are mentioned in clauses (a) to (p) of subsection (3) of section 66 of the Act. As per clause(p) of sub-section (3) of section 66 of the Act, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 shall not apply where the transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. ( 12. ) In the matter of New India Assurance Co. As per clause(p) of sub-section (3) of section 66 of the Act, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 66 shall not apply where the transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. ( 12. ) In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Papaiah, 2006 ACJ 126 (Karnataka), Honble Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in a case where autorickshaw met with an accident at a place 20 km away from police station whereas its permit permitted it to be plied within the radius of 10 km of the town, it was held that there is breach of permit conditions and terms of the policy and the insurance company exempted from its liability. However, it was directed that insurance company has to pay compensation awarded to the third party and recover the amount from the insured. ( 13. ) In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC), wherein the persons were travelling in autorickshaw, which was insured but not obtained permit to ply the vehicle, it was held that plying of vehicle without a permit is an infraction. It was further held that considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. It was further observed that insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. ( 14. ) Undoubtedly in the present case respondent No. 2 has obtained the permit to ply the vehicle w.e.f. 21.10.2004. Documentary evidence is also on record to show that the requisite fee was deposited by the respondent No. 2 much before the accident, i.e., 6.10.2004, however, it will not improve the case of the respondent No. 2 because the accident took place on 20.10.2004. Another plea which has been raised by the respondent No. 2 is that at the relevant time the offending bus was coming from the workshop, where the offending vehicle was kept for repairing. To prove this fact respondent No. 2 examined himself and also one Bashir Mohammad, mechanic, in whose workshop the offending vehicle was kept for repairing. There is nothing on record to show that what type of repairing was carried out, as the bill relating to repairing is not submitted. To prove this fact respondent No. 2 examined himself and also one Bashir Mohammad, mechanic, in whose workshop the offending vehicle was kept for repairing. There is nothing on record to show that what type of repairing was carried out, as the bill relating to repairing is not submitted. Apart from this two important witnesses who are appellant Sunita and her father Amarsingh Chouhan has stated in cross-examination made by respondent No. 3 that the offending bus was carrying passengers. Appellant Sunita has gone to the extent that at the time of accident 30-40 passengers were sitting in the bus. No cross-examination has been made by the respondent No. 2 on these witnesses. No suggestion was given to the effect that the appellant and her father are giving false statement. There is no reason that why a young girl who was victim shall make a false statement. Apart from this the best witness could have been the driver of the offending bus, who is respondent No. 1 herein, who has not been examined. For taking advantage of section 66 (3)(p) of the Act, it was necessary for the respondent No. 2 to prove that at the relevant time the offending bus was empty, while from the evidence it has been proved that the bus was carrying passengers, therefore, the respondent No. 2, cannot be put in an advantageous position. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law in the opinion of this court no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in exonerating the respondent No. 2 and directing the respondent No. 3 to deposit the amount with a right of recovery from the respondent Nos.1 and 2. ( 15. ) In view of this appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed in part, holding that the appellant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,40,000, instead of Rs. 79,500 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 60,500 shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application. 1,40,000, instead of Rs. 79,500 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 60,500 shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of the appellant in the nearest nationalised bank, in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance and interest on the said amount will be paid on quarterly basis directly to the appellant. However, on an application by the appellant this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. ( 16. ) So far as the condition imposed by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the amount shall be disbursed to the appellant only upon submission of security by the respondent No. 2 is concerned, it appears to be unjust, hence the same stands set aside. So far as cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 3 is concerned, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.