ORDER 1. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. No. 921/2009, M.A. No.924/2009 and M.A. No. 1580/2009 as all the appeals are arising out of one accident and also one award dated 10.2.2009 passed by I M.A.C.T., Indore. In M.A. No. 1581/2009 the Claim Case No. is 351/2007, whereby a sum of Rs.80,161/- has been awarded to respondent No.2 as compensation. Respondent No.2 has filed the appeal for enhancement which is numbered as M.A. No. 924/2009. In M.A. No. 1580/2009 the Claim Case No. is 415/ 2007, wherein a sum of Rs.1,85,456/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No.2 to 4. In both the cases appellants are the owner and driver and respondent No.1 is the Insurance Company. In M.A. No. 1581/2009 respondent No.2 is the injured while in M.A. No. 1580/2009 respondents No.2 to 4 are the Legal Representatives of deceased Bablesh. 2. Short facts of the case are that deceased Bablesh and Anil were the brothers. In a motor accident, which took place on 21.3.2007, Bablesh died while respondent No.2 Anil sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that on that day deceased Bablesh was going on his motor bike bearing registration No.MP-09-JP-4638 while respondent No.2 Anil was the pillion rider. It was alleged that the offending bus bearing registration No. MP-09-KD-4786, which was driven by appellant No.1 and owned by appellant No.2 and also insured by respondent No.1 dashed the motor bike with the result the driver and the pillion rider of the offending motor bike fell down. It was alleged that Bablesh, who was driving the motor bike died on spot while respondent No.2 Anil sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that both of them were shifted to the hospital, where Bablesh died. It was alleged that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of appellant No.1, therefore, appellants and respondent No.1 be held liable for payment of compensation. The claim petition was contested by the appellants as well by the respondent No. 1. The contention of the appellants is that the accident did not occur because of rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 1. It was alleged that it is deceased Bablesh, who was driving the motor bike rashly and negligently. It was denied that appellant No.1 is liable for payment of compensation. 3. The contention of the appellants is that the accident did not occur because of rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 1. It was alleged that it is deceased Bablesh, who was driving the motor bike rashly and negligently. It was denied that appellant No.1 is liable for payment of compensation. 3. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. I on the various grounds including the ground that since at the relevant time appellants were not possessing the permit for plying the bus, therefore, it was a violation of the terms of the policy, hence respondent No. I was not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 2 Anil and respondents No. 2 to 4 in another appeal, who are the Legal Representatives and awarded Rs.80,161/- and Rs.1,85,456/-. The break up of which is as under :- Anil (iniury Case) Medical Expenses Rs 45,161/- Expenses incurred on attenders Rs 5,000/- Pain and suffering Rs 30,000/- Rs.80,161/- Deceased Bablesh (death case) Loss of dependency Rs. 1,75,956/- Funderal expenses Rs 2,000/- Loss of estate Rs 2,500/- Loss of love and affection Rs 5,000/- Rs. 1,85,456/- 4. In both the appeals the contention of the counsel for injured Anil and the Legal Representatives of the deceased is that looking to the injuries sustained by Anil amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that huge amount has been awarded on account of fracture of right femur bone. It was submitted that Anil sustained shortening of leg by l cm. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that the amount awarded is on lower side. 5. Shri J.M. Poonegar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 in another appeal submits that on account of death of Bablesh the learned Tribunal assessed income of the deceased @ Rs.2,000/- per month and after deducting 2/3rd and also applying the multiplier, loss of dependency has been assessed, which is on lower side. It is submitted that the deceased was aged 19 years and was in job as he was the Carpenter and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It is submitted that on number of heads no amount was awarded and on number of heads award is on lower side. It is submitted that the amount awarded is inadequate, which may be enhanced. 6. It is submitted that the deceased was aged 19 years and was in job as he was the Carpenter and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It is submitted that on number of heads no amount was awarded and on number of heads award is on lower side. It is submitted that the amount awarded is inadequate, which may be enhanced. 6. Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the amount awarded in both the cases are just and proper, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the claims Tribunal has directed that the amount be paid by respondent No.1 Insurance Company and be recovered from the appellants. It is submitted that since the offending vehicle was school bus and unladen weight of the bus was 2,560 Kg., therefore, no permit is required. For this contention reliance is placed on the definition of Transport Vehicles, which is defined in Section 2 (47) of Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: Section 2 (47) -- "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle." Learned counsel submits that Section 66 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down as under: "Section 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 passengers 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:" 7. It is submitted that the burden to prove that there was violation of the terms of the policy as the appellants have no permit was on the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the burden to prove that there was violation of the terms of the policy as the appellants have no permit was on the respondent No.1. No evidence was adduced by respondent No.1 in this regard, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in giving right of recovery, to the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal be allowed and the impugned award so far as it relates to the direction, whereby the learned Tribunal has given the right to the respondent No.1 to pay and recover the amount from appellants is concerned, be set aside. 8. Shri Monesh Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that right from beginning the case of the appellants was that offending bus was educational bus. It is submitted that undisputedly the offending vehicle was the transport vehicle covered under Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act every vehicle, which is covered under the category of transport vehicle can be plied after obtaining the permit. It is submitted that since the appellants did not produce the permit before the learned Tribunal and also before this Court, therefore, respondent No.1 is not liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in imposing the condition that respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to recover the amount, which can be corrected by this Court in appeal. 9. From perusal of the record it appears that in M.A. No. 1581/2009 respondent No.1 Anil is injured. From the documentary evidence submitted by respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal it appears that amount on account of medical expenses is on lower side. On other heads also the amount deserves to be enhanced. In view of this respondent No.1 shall be entitled for the following amount:-- Towards Medical expenses Rs 50,000/- Towards pain and suffering Rs 30,000/- Towards Special diet Rs 5,000/- Towards Transport expenses Rs 5,000/- Towards attenders Rs 5,000/- Towards hospital expenses Rs 10,000/- Towards Loss of education Total: Rs 10,000/- Rs. 1,15,000/- 10. So far as the deceased Bablesh is concerned, whose LRs are respondent No.2 to 3 in M.A. No. 1580/2009, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. On number of heads no amount has been awarded. 1,15,000/- 10. So far as the deceased Bablesh is concerned, whose LRs are respondent No.2 to 3 in M.A. No. 1580/2009, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. On number of heads no amount has been awarded. The death took place in the year 2007. Looking to the fact that deceased was residing at Indore the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, which ought to have been Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since the deceased was unmarried, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in deducting 2/3rd, which ought to have been 112. In view of this respondents No.2 to 4 are entitled for the following amount- Towards Loss of dependency Rs. 1,98,000/ Towards Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/ Towards Loss of earning Rs. 10,000/ Towards Love and affection Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs. 2,23,000/ 11. So far as the direction to the respondent No. 1 to pay and recover is concerned, from perusal of the record it is evident that appellants have not bothered to lead any evidence before the Tribunal. Ex. D/1 is the policy, which has been duly proved by respondent No.1. In the policy itself it is mentioned that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2 (47) defines the word "transport vehicle". 12. Section 66 deals with necessity of permit. According to which transport vehicle, which actually carrying any passengers is required to obtain the permit granted by the R. T.A. Clause (h) of sub-Section 3 of Section 66 of Motor Vehic1esAct, reads as under :-- "Section 66 (3) (h) -- to any transport vehicle owned by and used solely for the purpose of an educational institution which is recognised by the Central or State Government or whose managing committee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India." 13. According to sub-section (h) no permit was required to the appellants as it was a school bus. Sub-section (h) has been deleted by the amendment Act No. 27 of 2000 w.e.f. 11.8.2000 meaning thereby w.e.f. 12.8.2000 a school bus is also required to obtain permit. According to sub-section (h) no permit was required to the appellants as it was a school bus. Sub-section (h) has been deleted by the amendment Act No. 27 of 2000 w.e.f. 11.8.2000 meaning thereby w.e.f. 12.8.2000 a school bus is also required to obtain permit. Sub-clause (I) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down that provisions of Section 66 will not apply to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000/- kilograms. Since the offending vehicle was not a goods vehicle, therefore, this provision does not attract in the present case. In the matter of National Insurance Company v. Challa Bharathamma, reported in 2004 ACJ 2094, wherein the offending vehicle was autorikshaw. Hon 'ble Apex Court has held that since the insured has not obtained permit to ply the vehicle, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable. 14. In view of the aforesaid position of law even no direction could have been issued to the respondent No. 1 to pay the awarded amount and recover the same from the appellant. However, since there is no appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and the awarded amount by the learned Tribunal has already been paid, therefore, at this stage the mistake committed by, the Tribunal cannot be corrected. 15. In view of this appeal filed by the appellants has no merit and is hereby dismissed. So far as the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and the legal representatives of deceased Bablesh respondent No.2 in M.A. No. 921/2009 is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by Rs.37,544/- to the legal representatives of the deceased Bablesh. So far as M.A. No. 924/2009 filed by the injured Anil is concerned, it is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation by Rs.34,839/- to the injured Anil. The enhanced amount shall carry the same interest as directed by the Tribunal. 80% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of Ani1 and respondent No.2 monther in M.A. No. 921/2009 in such a manner so that it should fetch maximum interest in the nationalized bank. The interest shall be payable to the concerned persons on quarterly basis. 16. With the aforesaid all the appeals stand disposed of A copy of this order be kept in the record of all the appeals.