JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal misc. petition the petitio-ner has challenged the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') by which he rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and four other persons at P.S. Moti Dungari for the offence u/Ss 147, 323 and 336 IPC on 30.7.1998. Thereafter, the police submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid offences on 18.11.1998. On 24.3.2005 the trial Court forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner and issued arrest warrant against him. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. which the trial Court dismissed the same vide order dated 21.7.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was a student and after that he started to work in a private firm at Delhi. He is suffering from Cardiac disease and for that purpose he has annexed with this petition the medical prescriptions. He submits that the petitioner is neither a previous convicted person nor a habitual offender and he is a social person. 4. Learned PP seriously opposed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the trial court has rightly passed the order impugned and the order passed by the trial Court need no interference of this Court. 5. From a bare perusal of the case file it is clear that non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court was bona-fide and not intentional. 6. In the result this criminal misc. petition stands disposed of and the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur is modified with the following directions: 1. If the petitioner submits bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of Rs. 12,500/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, then he be enlarged on bail; 2. Before furnishing the bail bonds the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine under section 446 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court; 3. The petitioner will regularly remain present before the trial Court on the date fixed by it and shall not abscond in future. 7. Before furnishing the bail bonds the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine under section 446 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court; 3. The petitioner will regularly remain present before the trial Court on the date fixed by it and shall not abscond in future. 7. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of. [Citation 2011(2) RLW 1278 (Raj.)] (Rajasthan High Court) Jaipur Bench Pooni Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. (Bhagwati, J.) HON'BLE MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Pooni Versus Phool Singh & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Petition No. 952 of 2001, decided on 12.11.2009 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 4(3), 7(2), 10(3), 149(2) & 173 — Injury matter — Fracture of right hand in accident — Compensation claim — Tribunal awarded Rs. 22,857/- absolving insurance company from its liability — Finding of tribunal that driver of offending vehicle was having a learner's licence at the time of accident, hence insurer is not liable — Tribunal did not award anything for loss of income — Appeal for grant of reasonable compensation amount — Held — Finding of tribunal in regard to learner licence is contrary to law, therefore, set aside — Insurance company is liable to pay compensation — Claimant is entitled to receive general damages for pain and suffering of non-grievous injuries as per second schedule of M.V. Act — Loss of income not taken into consideration by tribunal therefore, Rs. 5,000/- awarded for loss of income and Rs. 1,000/- for non-grievous injury — Rs. 6,000/- additionally awarded to claimant — Claimant is entitled to get Rs. 28,857/- instead of Rs. 22,857/- from all respondents jointly and severally — Award modified to above extent. Appeal allowed. 5,000/- awarded for loss of income and Rs. 1,000/- for non-grievous injury — Rs. 6,000/- additionally awarded to claimant — Claimant is entitled to get Rs. 28,857/- instead of Rs. 22,857/- from all respondents jointly and severally — Award modified to above extent. Appeal allowed. (Paras 7, 8, 10 & 11) eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 4¼3½] 7¼2½] 10¼3½] 149¼2½ ,oa 173 & pksfVy ekeyk & nq?kZVuk esa nka;s gkFk dk vfLFk Hkax & izfrdj nkok & vf/kdj.k us chek daiuh dks mlds nkf;Ro ls eqDr djrs gq, 22]857@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;s & vf/kdj.k dk fu"d"kZ fd fyIr okgu dk pkyd nq?kZVuk ds le; fl[kus dh vuqKfIr j[krk Fkk] vr% chekdrkZ nka;h ugha gS & vf/kdj.k us vk; dh gkfu gsrq dqN Hkh vf/kfu.kZ; ugha fd;k & ;qfDr;qDr izfrdj jkf'k iznku djus gsrq vihy & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & lh[kus dh vuqKfIr ds laca/k esa vf/kdj.k dk fu"d"kZ fof/k ds izfrdwy gS vr% vikLr fd;k & chek daiuh izfrdj Hkqxrku gsrq nk;h gS & nkosnkj eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds f}rh; vuqlwfp ds vuqlkj vxaHkhj pksVksa ds ihM+k ,oa ;kruk gsrq lk/kkj.k {kfr izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS & vf/kdj.k }kjk vk; dh gkfu fopkj esa ugha fy;k x;k vr% vk; dh gkfu gsrq 5]000@- #i;s ,oa xaHkhj pksV gsrq 1000@- #i;s vf/kfuf.kZr fd;k & nkosnkj dks 6]000@- #i;s vfrfjDr :i ls vf/kfuf.kZr fd;k & nkosnkj lHkh izfrokfn;ksa ls la;qDrr% ,oa i`Fkdr% 22]857@- #i;s ds cnys 28]857@- #i;s izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS & mijksDr foLrkj rd vf/kfu.kZ; mikUrfjr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 7] 8] 10 ,oa 11½ vihy Lohdkj dhA Case Law Referred (Para No.) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. ( (2004) 3 SCC 297 ) 4 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe ( (1996) 2 SCC 328 ) 7 Advocates Appeared Rajneesh Gupta, for Appellants; Archana Mantri, for Respondent Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 31.3.2001 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bayana, District Bharatpur decreed an amount of Rs 22,857/- in favour of the appellant-claimant and against the respondent-non-claimants Nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/7 and absolved the liability of respondent No.3 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The nub of the appellant's story is that : On 8.12.1993, the claimant-appellant Pooni accompanied by Rajbai, Muli, Dhupi and others were returning from Shekhpur to their village Jagantha. 1, 2/1 to 2/7 and absolved the liability of respondent No.3 New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The nub of the appellant's story is that : On 8.12.1993, the claimant-appellant Pooni accompanied by Rajbai, Muli, Dhupi and others were returning from Shekhpur to their village Jagantha. when they reached near 'Puliya' private Bus bearing registration No. RRD 6925 emerged at the fast speed from the opposite direction and rammed the traula attached to the tractor resulting into fracture of right hand of the claimant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that the learned Tribunal absolved the Insurance Company of its liability on the ground that the drier of the offending Bus was not having a valid and effective license to drive the vehicle. Albeit, the driver was having learner's license but in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1996(1) TAC page 506, did not find the learner's license to be valid and effective for the purpose of meeting out the Insurance Company's liability. Learned counsel canvassed that the finding of the learned Tribunal is totally contrary to the provisions of law as also the conditions of the Insurance policy. Learned counsel cited the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in 2004(1) WLC (SC) Civil 270 : (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297 and contended that the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's license, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the decree. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, in contrary, has defended the impugned judgment and called the same to be just and proper. Albeit, she contended that the learner's license cannot be said to be valid and effective license and the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to satisfy the decree but she failed to sow any law in support thereof. 6. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus : Learner's Licence : 93. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14]. 6. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus : Learner's Licence : 93. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner's licence, is thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not "duly licensed" resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act." 7. Having carefully perused the aforesaid judgment, it is found that the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe reported in (1996) 2 SCC 328 and in 1996(1) TAC 506 relied upon by the Tribunal has been distinguished and Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. (supra) held that if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having learner's licence, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the decree. In view of this observation of Hon'ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability merely on this ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a learner's license at the time of accident. The finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal in this regard seems to be contrary to law and the same deserves to be set aside. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) the liability can be fastened on the respondent No.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the appe-llant-claimant shall be entitled to claim the amount of compensation under the award from the respondents Nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/7 and 3 severally and jointly. 8. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) the liability can be fastened on the respondent No.3 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the appe-llant-claimant shall be entitled to claim the amount of compensation under the award from the respondents Nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/7 and 3 severally and jointly. 8. The second thrust of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation under the award is insufficient and meager looking to the nature of injury, the claimants sustained. He contended that the claimant Pooni sustained a fracture on the right hand in the said accident. She remained admitted in the Hospital. Thereafter, she visited Doctor many a times to show the progress of healing of wound and spent a huge amount in transportation and treatment. Learned Tribunal taking a very unreasonable view awarded only Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering but did not award anything for the simple injury she sustained on her forehead. Similarly, the learned Tribunal did not award anything for the loss of income. Thus, the reasonable amount of compensation may be granted and the award may be modified. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company contended that the impugned award is just and proper and it calls for no interference. 10. In view of the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, the claimant is entitled to receive general damages for pain and suffering of non-grievous injuries. The Legislature has permitted Rs. 1,000/- for each simple injury to be given to the injured. the ground of loss of income has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, hence, I deem just and proper to award Rs. 1,000/- for non-grievous injury and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of injured's income in addition to the amount of compensation under the impugned award. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to claim Rs. 1,000/- against the non-grievous injury and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of income and thus, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 22,857/- to Rs. 28,857/- which the claimant shall be entitled to claim from the respondents Nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/7 and 3 jointly and severally. The order with regard to absolving the respondent No. 3, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. of its liability is set side. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove. 12. 22,857/- to Rs. 28,857/- which the claimant shall be entitled to claim from the respondents Nos. 1, 2/1 to 2/7 and 3 jointly and severally. The order with regard to absolving the respondent No. 3, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. of its liability is set side. The impugned award stands modified as indicated hereinabove. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.