ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 17/12/03 passed by AM ACT, Mandsaur in claim case No. 94/2002 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 32,800/- was awarded and respdt. No.1 was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that appellant is a lady aged 42 years. It was alleged that on 23/4/2001 appellant was going on a motorbike along with Prahad. Appellant was pillion rider. It was alleged that motorbike which was bearing registration No. MP14 YA 3844 which was driven by respdt No.3, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respdt. No.1 dashed the motorbike of which appellant was pillion rider with the result appellant sustained fracture of right leg. Appellant was hospitalized at city hospital Mandsaur where she remained for 3 days where she was referred to Ahmedabed. Appellant was operated and rod was inserted Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.32,800/- and exonerated respdt. No.1, against which the present appeal has been filed 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that in number of heads, no amount has been awarded and in other heads the amount be enhanced. So far as liability of respdt. No.1 is concerned, learned counsel for submits that since respdt. Nos.2 and 3 remained ex-parte and the plea was taken by respdt. No.1 that inspite of notice, respdt. Nos.2 and 3 have not produced the driving licence of respdt. No.2, therefore it was held that there was a breach of policy and respondent No.1 has been exonerated. It is submitted that even if inspite of notice licence was not produced, it cannot be said that respdt. No.2 was not possessing the licence and there was a breach of policy. At the most respdt No.1 could have been given right to recovery the amount of compensation from respdt. Nos. 2 and 3. it is submitted that appeal be allowed. Mr. K.K. Tiwari, appearing on behalf of respdt. No.2 submits that appeal be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respdt. No.1 submits that respdt. Nos. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte before the learned tribunal. It is submitted that notice was given to repdt. No.2 to produce the licence but no licence was produced. Thereafter respdt. Nos.2 and 3 were summoned to adduce the evidence but inspite of that respdt. No.2 submits that appeal be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respdt. No.1 submits that respdt. Nos. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte before the learned tribunal. It is submitted that notice was given to repdt. No.2 to produce the licence but no licence was produced. Thereafter respdt. Nos.2 and 3 were summoned to adduce the evidence but inspite of that respdt. Nos.2 and 3 did not appear. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the mater of National Insurance Company Vs. Kaushalaya Devi, 2008 ACJ 2144 , wherein insurance company sought to avoid its liability on the ground that driver had no valid and effective liecnce to drive the offending truck tribunal held that insurance company failed to prove its contention, High Court found that driver had licence to drive light transport vehicle and the owner could not have checked or verified the licence for driving a heavy goods vehicle and owner did not step into the witness box to state anything. Hon, Apex Court held that High Court was justified in holding that Insurance company is not liable but the owner is liable. 5. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid position of law and keeping in view the fact that efforts were made by respdt. No. 1 to produce the licence, earned tribunal has rightly exonerated the respdt. No.1. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that amount awarded is just and proper. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 6. From perusal of record it appears that injuries sustained by the appellant was grievous in nature and appellant was hospitalized at Ahmedabad, this court is of the view that amount awarded is grossly inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. The appellant shall be entitled for the following amount: - Towards grievous injuries Rs. 25,000/- Towards medical exp. Rs. 5,000/- Towards ex. Incurred on attenders Rs.5000/- Towards special diet Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Towards transport exp. Rs. 10,000/- Towards hospital exp. Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 70,000/- 7. Thus, appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- instead of Rs.32,800/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 37,200/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum form the date of application. 8. So far as liability of respdt. No. 1 is concerned, it is true that efforts were made by respdt. No.1 to call respdt. 70,000/- 7. Thus, appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- instead of Rs.32,800/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 37,200/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum form the date of application. 8. So far as liability of respdt. No. 1 is concerned, it is true that efforts were made by respdt. No.1 to call respdt. Nos.2 and 3 to produce the licence by issuing notice and also by summoning them to appear before learned tribunal. Since respdt. Nos.2 and 3 did not appear, therefore it was the duty of respdt. No.1 to request the leaned tribunal to take coercive steps to compel them to remain present but no efforts were made by respdt. No.1 in that regard. So far as decision of Hon, Apex Court in the matter of Kaushalaya Devi is concerned, in that case the injured was gratuitous passenger in the truck which was a goods vehicle while in the present case, appellant was third party and was traveling on a motorbike, therefore law laid down by the Hon, Apex court in the matter of Kaushalaya Devi is quite distinguishable. Respdt. No. 2 is present before this court also but counsel appeared on behalf of repdt. No.2 is unable to make any statement whether respdt. No.3 was possessing the driving licence or not. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The amount is enhanced as stated above. Since appellant was third party and offending vehicle was insured, therefore so far as findings relating to liability of respdt. No.2 and 3 is concerned, is maintained. However respdt. No.1 is directed to pay and recover the same form respdt. Nos.2 and 3. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of.