JUDGMENT U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the Appellant registered owner of the offending vehicle being aggrieved by the award dated 27th October, 1998 passed by Second Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Khandwa in Claims Case No. 13/97 whereby the claim of Respondent no. 1 with respect of injuries sustained in a vehicular accident by exoneraling the Respondent No. 3, insurer has been awarded jointly and severally against the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 the driver of the alleged of fending vehicle for the sum of Rs. 87,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 23rd June, 1997 the date of filing the claim petition with further direction that if such payment is not made within three months then the interest shall be payable @ 15% p.a. 2. After receiving the notice of this appeal on behalf of Respondent No. 1/ claimant a cross-objection for enhancement of the above mentioned awarded sum up to Rs. 2,00,000/- is also filed, which is also being considered in this appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that Respondent No. 1 claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short "the Act") contending that on 2nd January, 1997 he was going from village Ashapur to Barudh by his bullock cart on the way at the bridge of River Agni a truck bearing registration No. C.I.B.-8129 driven by Respondent No. 2 in rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and colided with the bullock cart resultantly, the bullock cart and its pair of oxen fell down in the aforesaid river, such pair of oxen died on the spot, the bullock cart was also damaged. Apart from this the Respondent No. 1 sustained the injuries on various parts of his person, he was taken to hospital where on investigation the fractures in his hip bone, left pubic bone, in left leg and ulna bone of the hand and some other injuries on different parts of his person were revealed. M.L.C. report was prepared and in subsequent treatment the surgery was also carried out, he remained in hospital near about two weeks, in spite of such treatment he could not come in the position as he was before. Due to such injuries he sustained 20% permanent disability in his person. M.L.C. report was prepared and in subsequent treatment the surgery was also carried out, he remained in hospital near about two weeks, in spite of such treatment he could not come in the position as he was before. Due to such injuries he sustained 20% permanent disability in his person. Immediately after the accident F.I.R. was lodged by the nephew of Respondent No. 1 at RS. Khalwa. After registration of offence the investigation was carried out and on completion of the same Respondent No. 2 driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted before the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The offending vehicle was registered in the name of Appellant while the same was insured with the Respondent No. 3. Due to aforesaid injuries the Respondent No. 1 could not carry out his regular agricultural work for near about six months. With these averments the claimant/ Respondent No.1 has filed his claim for the sum of Rs. 4,81,000/-. 4. Appellant and Respondent No. 2 driver proceeded exparte before the Tribunal while in reply of Respondent No. 3 the insurer by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the particulars of the insurance policy has not been supplied to it. In the lack of such particulars no liability to indemnify the claim can be saddled on it. Subject to supplying the copy of the policy and its verification the liability to indemnify the claim could be saddled on it. In addition, it is stated that offending vehicle was driven by Respondent No. 2 without having duly and effective driving licence, hence on that count also no liability could be saddled against it. With these averments the prayer for exonerating the Respondent No. 3 is made. In view of the pleadings after framing the issues the evidence was recorded. On apprecition of it, in the lack of insurance policy and the evidence in that regard by exonerating Respondent No. 3/ insurer to indemnify the liability of claim, the same was awarded against the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, as mentioned above, on which the Appellant/ registered owner has come forward with this appeal while after receiving the notice of appeal Respondent No. 2 has filed his cross-objection for enhancement of the awarded sum. 5. 5. In pendency of the appeal on behalf of the Appellant alongwith an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil procedure, original insurance policy of the alleged offending vehicle for the period in which the alleged accident took place was placed on the record. Such LA. is pending for adjudication. 6. On making query from the Counsel of Respondent No. 3/insurer regarding validity of such policy, he fairly admitted that offending vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 3, for which the policy placed by the Appellant on record was issued. In such circumstance, such original policy appears to be necessary for adjudication of this appeal, hence, by allowing the aforesaid application the policy is taken on record, (office is directed to mark interlocutory application number on such application, as the same is not marked). 7. Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned appearing Counsel of the Appellant submits that after accepting on behalf of Respondent No. 3/insurer that offending vehicle was duly insured with it, the liability to indemnify the claim should be saddled against Respondent No. 3/insurer. So far objection of Insurance Company that Respondent No. 2 driver of the offending vehicle did not possess duly and effective licence to drive the vehicle is concerned, he said that such objection is not sustainable because the Insurance Company was duty bound to prove by adducing admissible evidence that Respondent No. 2 did not possess the effective driving licence to drive the alleged vehicle. It is apparent from the record that in that regard no evidence has been adduced by the Respondent No. 3. thus on this count also the Insurance Company could not be exonerated to indemnify the claim of Respondent No. 1, In support of this contention he also placed his reliance on some reported case of the Apex Court and prayed for sadding the liability to indemnify the claim against Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company by allowing this appeal. 8. thus on this count also the Insurance Company could not be exonerated to indemnify the claim of Respondent No. 1, In support of this contention he also placed his reliance on some reported case of the Apex Court and prayed for sadding the liability to indemnify the claim against Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company by allowing this appeal. 8. On the other hand Shri Sidharth Singh, appearing Counsel for the claimant/Respondent No. 1 by referring the pleadings, evidence and marked documents on record said that looking to the nature of the sustained injuries and the various fractures on the different parts of the body of claimant and in view of deposition of concerning doctor stating that due to such injuries he sustained 20% permanent disability in his person the sum awarded by the Tribunal is apparently lower side, the same requires further enhancement at this stage and prayed to allow his cross-objection accordingly. He also said that as per aforesaid insurance policy the liability to indemnify the claim be saddled jointly and severally against Respondent No. 3 alongwith the Appellant and Respondent No. 2. 9. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, appearing Counsel of Respondent No, 3/ Insurance Company fairly accepted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with his company but in the lack of policy or its copy before the Tribunal the case could not be properly defended by it. So in view of insurance policy the case be remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide afresh after extending the opportunity to Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company to adduce the evidence in support of his objection. He also said that the offending vehicle was driven by Respondent No. 2 without having any effective driving licence and thereby the vehicle was plied contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence the liability to indemnify the claim could not be saddled against it and in such premises, he justified the award of the Tribunal exonerating the Respondent No. 3/insurer and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the Counsel keeping in view their arguments on perushing the record alongwith the impugned award. 10. Having heard the Counsel keeping in view their arguments on perushing the record alongwith the impugned award. I am of the considered view that in the light of the aforesaid insurance policy of the offending vehicle, Tribunal has committed error in exonerating the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company from indermnifying the claim of Respondent No.1 and also in the available set of the evidence the sum awarded to the Respondent No. 1 appears to be lower side, the same requires some enhancement at this stage. 11. As per findings of the Tribunal, the alleged accident was the cause and consequences of rash and negligent driving of offending Vehicle by Respondent No. 9 and due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident the Respondent No. 1 had sustained 20% permanent disability on his person. He also sustained the loss of his bullock cart and a pair of oxen. Such findings have not been challenged by either of the parties. Accordingly, the same are not under dispute in this appeal. In such premises, such findings had got finality between the parties. The same do not require any consideration at this stage. 12. Coming to the question whether in view of the aforesaid insurance policy, after accepting its genuineness by the Counsel of the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, in view of its objection that Respondent No. 2 drove the offending vehicle without having duly and effective driving licence, the case should be remitted back to the Tribunal to decide afresh or the question for saddling the liability of the claim on the insurer could be considered here in this appeal on the basis of available record. 13. True, it is that driving licence of the Respondent No. 2 or its copy is neither produced nor proved on record by any of the parties. According, to submission of the Counsel of the insurer, the claimant/Respondent No. 1 was duty bound to prove that offending vehicle was driven by Respondent No. 2 having duly and effecxtive driving licence but I am not in agreement with him on such question, in consonance of the pleadings. In view of settled proposition in consonance of the pleadings and defence the Insurance Company was bound to prove that the driver of the offending insured vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Such burden was not on the shoulder of the claimant. In view of settled proposition in consonance of the pleadings and defence the Insurance Company was bound to prove that the driver of the offending insured vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Such burden was not on the shoulder of the claimant. In the lack of any evidence in support of such plea of the insurer, the Tribunal has committed grave error in exonerating the insurer from indemnifying the liability of impugned award. My such view is fully fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Narcinva V. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antonio do Martins and Ors., (1985) 2 S.C.C. 574 , in which it is held as under: 14. ...The burden to prove that there was breach of contract of insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the Insurance Company. It could not be said to have been discharged by it by a mere question in cross-examination. The second Appellant was under no obligation to furnish evidence so as to enable the Insurance Company to wriggle out its liability under the contract of insurance. Further the R.T.A. which issues the driving licence keeps a record of the licences issued and renewed by it. The Insurance Company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate its allegations. Applying the test who would fall if no evidence is led, the obvious answer is the Insurance Company. 15. To sum up the Insurance Company failed to prove that there was breach of the term of the contract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance on the ground that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time did not have a valid driving licence. Once the Insurance Company failed to prove that aspect, its liability under the contract of insurance remains intact and unhampered and it was bound to satisfy the award under the comprehensive policy of insurance. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion the aforesaid objection of the Insurance Company with respect of the driving licence is hereby failed. 15. It is apparent from the record that sufficient opportunity to adduce the evidence was extended by the Tribunal to the parties including to the insurance company. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion the aforesaid objection of the Insurance Company with respect of the driving licence is hereby failed. 15. It is apparent from the record that sufficient opportunity to adduce the evidence was extended by the Tribunal to the parties including to the insurance company. If the same was not availed by the insurer, then at this stage just to fill up the lacuna if any (which is not found), the case cannot be remitted back to the Tribunal for extending the opportunity to the Insurance Company to adduce the evidence in that regard. 16. Even otherwise after taking into consideration of the aforesaid policy in view of aforesaid decision of the Apex Court this case could be adjudicated without remitting back the matter to the Tribunal. Hence,the prayer of the Insurance Company Respondent No. 3 for remanding the matter is hereby rejected. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, by holding the offending vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 3, the liability to indemnify the claim of Respondent No. 1 is saddled jointly and severally against the Appellant, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the insurer. Till this extent the findings of the Tribunal is modified. 18. Coming to consider the cross-objection of the Respondent No. 1 for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is apparent that in the age of 55 years Respondent No. 1 sustained various fractures in his person on hip bone, left pubic and ilihimia bone and ulna bone of left hand in the alleged accident. Besides the fractures he also sustained other injuries. The same have been proved by Dr. J.P.N. Dubey (A.W. 1), the treating doctor and subsequently before issuing certificate of permanent disability, the Respondent No. 1 was examined by Dr. N.S. Obeja, (A.W. 6). According to his deposition and certificate Respondent No. 1 sustained 20% permanent disability due to the aforesaid injuries. Such certificate is also relied by the Tribunal. In the available circumstance, looking to the nature of the aforesaid injuries the findings of the Tribunal in this regard does not require any interference, hence the same are hereby affirmed. 19. So far quantum of compensation is concerned, looking to the nature of injuries and its line and duration of treatment, the sum awarded by the Tribunal for conveyance, medical and travelling expenses Rs. 19. So far quantum of compensation is concerned, looking to the nature of injuries and its line and duration of treatment, the sum awarded by the Tribunal for conveyance, medical and travelling expenses Rs. 15,000/- appears to be very lower side. It is apparent from the deposition of aforesaid treating doctor that some surgery with respect of alleged fracture of the Respondent No. 1 was carried out and from the discharge card and other proved papers on record it is apparent that he had taken the treatment for months together. In such premises, I am of the considered view that on the aforesaid head Rs. 30,000/- should have been awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the sum on such head is further enhanced by Rs. 15,000/-. The sum awarded on account of loss of income Rs. 7,500/-looking to period of treatment appears to lower side: as the Respondent being agriculturist could not carry out his agricultural work near about one year, hence in such circumstance the awarded sum on such head is also further enhanced by Rs. 10,000/-. The sum awarded on the head of attendant expenses Rs. 10,000/- does not require any interference, the same is hereby affirmed. Looking to the nature of alleged injuries of Respondent No. 1 by which he has sustained 20% permanent disability the sum awarded by the Tribunal on the head of pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- is not only on lower side but also contrary to mandatory provision of the Act, in which the claimant was entitled some more sum in the light of mandaory provision of Section 140 read with Section 166 of the Act. In such premises, Tribunal committed error in this regard. Thus, in the available circumstances, such finding of the Tribunal is modified and the sum on such head is further enhanced by Rs. 15,000/-. So far the sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded with respect of the future expenses treatment is concerned, the same does not require any further enhancement, hence, the same is hereby affirmed. So far the loss of bullock cart and pair of oxen is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/-. The same appears to be just and proper. It does not require any further enhancement. In such premises, sum awarded by the Tribunal is further enhanced by Rs. 40,000/-. Till this extent the impugned award is modified. 20. So far the loss of bullock cart and pair of oxen is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/-. The same appears to be just and proper. It does not require any further enhancement. In such premises, sum awarded by the Tribunal is further enhanced by Rs. 40,000/-. Till this extent the impugned award is modified. 20. As per mandatory provision of Section 147 of the Act the liability of Insurance Company to indemnify the damages of the property the bullock cart and the pair of oxen is limited only upto Rs. 6,000/-, hence it is made clear that remaining sum (Rs. 15,000 - Rs. 6,000) Rs. 9,000/- of such head shall be payable by the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 jointly and severally. Till this extent the fRespondent No. 3 is exonerated. 21. In view of the aforesaid by allowing this appeal, the liability to indemnify the claim is saddled jointly and severally against Appellant, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally subject to observation made in the aforesaid Para 21 of the order. Simultaneously, by allowing the cross-objection of Respondent No. 1 in part the sum awarded by the Tribunal is further enganced by Rs. 40,000/-, as discussed and directed above i.e., from Rs. 87,500/- to Rs. 1,27,500/-. The enhanced sum shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. It is made clear that if any amount is deposited by the present Appellant to indemnify the awarded claim then he will be entitled to reimburse the same, except Rs. 9,000/- regarding damages of the property, from the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company as per terms of their insurance policy. Accordingly, the appeal and the cross-objection of the Respondent No. 1 are allowed in part, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to the cost.