JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. This Order shall also govern disposal of M.A. No. 299/2003 as this appeal has also been filed against the same award by the Respondent No. 3. This is an appeal filed by the claimant Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 24th December, 2002 passed by 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 23/2002. By the impugned award the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to claimant i.e. Appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant has filed this appeal so the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent ? 2. In M.A. No. 299/2003, which is the appeal filed by Respondent No. 3, submission of the Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is that Insurance Company has wrongly been held liable for payment of compensation as driver of the offending vehicle was not having the badge at the relevant time. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Respondent No. 3 be allowed and the Respondent No. 3 be exonerated from the payment of compensation. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant was aged 35 years at the time of accident, which took place on 15.7.2000. Appellant was hospitalized for fifteen days. Appellant sustained fractures in left hand. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000 /- break-up of which is as under: Rs. 20,000 / - Towards medical expenses. Rs. 10,000 / - Towards loss of income. Rs. 5,000 / - Towards pain & suffering. Rs. 40,000 / - Towards permanent disability. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the Appellant, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. 5. Learned Counsel of Respondent No. 3 submits that Appellant was not having badge while Appellant was driver. For this contention separate appeal has been filed by the Respondent No. 3. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the Appellant, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. 5. Learned Counsel of Respondent No. 3 submits that Appellant was not having badge while Appellant was driver. For this contention separate appeal has been filed by the Respondent No. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that on the date of accident as per the driving license Ext. D/1 of the Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 2 has no endorsement authorizing him to drive a public service vehicle (Bus) in the circumstances he was not authorized to drive the insured vehicle. Learned Counsel submits that on account of breach of policy conditions learned Tribunal committed error in holding Respondent No. 3 liable for payment of compensation. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sulochana v. Chandran 2004 ACJ 2118 : 2005 (1) T.A.C. 734, wherein Kerala High Court has held that in a case where a person without authorization and consequent driver's badge can be said to have an effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company has to first meet the liability and recover the amount so paid. It is submitted that appeal filed by the Respondent No. 3 be allowed and Respondent No. 3 be exonerated. Looking to the injuries sustained by the Appellant the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made. 6. Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that since it was not the case of Respondent No. 3 that the accident occurred because of disqualification of the driver to driving the passenger vehicle, therefore, learned Tribunal committed no error in holding the Respondent No. 3 for payment of compensation. Reliance is placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Tulna Devi 2009 A.C.J. 581 where in Hon'ble Apex Court held that Insurance Company disputing its liability on the plea that driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and goods vehicle but he was driving passenger vehicle and there was to evidence that accident was caused due to negligence of the driver or cause of accident was disqualification of driver to drive passenger vehicle. It was held that Insurance Company is liable. 7. It was held that Insurance Company is liable. 7. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the issue of injuries sustained by Appellant. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record it appears that a case for compensation. In my opinion, it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs. 40,000/-. Break up of which is as under: Medical Expenses Rs. 30,000/- Loss of Income Rs. 10,000/- Expenses on attainder Rs. 5,000/- Pain & suffering Rs. 5,000/- Special diet Rs. 10,000/- Transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Permanent disability Rs. 50,000/- ________________________________________________ Total Rs. 1,15,000/- ________________________________________________ 8. In other words, in view of this, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by Appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 40,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. In the facts and circumstances this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal committed no error in holding Respondent No. 3 liable for payment of compensation. In view of this appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed in part and the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 3 stands dismissed. 9. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed off. No order as to costs.