Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since these misc. appeals relate to award dated 14.12.2004 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Beawar (Addl. District Judge Fast Track Beawar (in short MACT) in MACT Cases Nos. 399/2004, 400,/2004, 401/2004, 402/2004, 403,2004, 404/2004, 405/2004, and 407/2004, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that on 14.6.99 Sualal, Gulabdevi, Geeta, Vijay Singh, Manjudevi, Miss Laxmi, Amrit Singh, Smt. Doli and Chhitar were travelling in Jeep No. RJ 19/1 C 0185 to Mangliyavas. The respondent No.1 was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and hit a truck. On account of which the accident took place resulting in death of Sualal and Gulabdevi and claimants Geeta, Vijay Singh, Manju Devi, Miss Laxmi, Amrit Singh, Smt. Doli and Chhitar received injuries on their bodies. On account of this case No. 120/99 was lodged at Police Station Mangliavas and investigation was started. After investigation challan was filed against the respondent No.1 before the concerned court. On account of death of Gulabdevi and Sualal, legal heirs of these two filed claim petitions and claimants Geeta, Vijay Singh, Manjudevi, Miss Laxmi, Amrit Singh, Smt. Doli and Chhitar filed claim petitions claiming compensation for the injuries received by them. 4. The respondent No.1, the driver and respondent No.2 owner of the jeep could not appear on 7.12.99 and no reply was filed on their behalf. The respondent No.3 filed reply to the claim petitions denying the accident and stated that at that time the respondent No.1 driver of the jeep was not having valid and effective licence and was driving the jeep for commercial purposes and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, issue No.1 was decided by the MACT in a way that this accident has occurred only because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 was exonerated from the liability of paying compensation as on the date of accident the respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective licence and the jeep was used for commercial purposes. The respondent No.2 was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and two months time was granted to him for paying the compensation. The respondent No.2 was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and two months time was granted to him for paying the compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the MACT has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record produced by the claimants in true sense. The MACT has committed gross illegality by holding that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants on the ground that since the vehicle was insured for the private use and whereas at the time of the incident it was being used for hire and reward. It has been contended that a bare perusal of the statements of the claimants it will reveal that only one witness has deposed that the vehicle was taken for hire and other witnesses have categorically deposed that they did not pay the fare to anybody hence, it cannot be said that the insured has committed any breach of condition of policy and apart of that assuming it that insured has committed the breach of the condition of the policy even though the insurance company cannot be escaped from its liability at the most it can get the direction for the recovery of the amount paid by it from the insured as held by the Apex Court in the case of National insurance Co. vs. Swarn Singh. The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the MACT has committed illegality in holding that the insurance company has failed to prove that the insured has committed any willful breach of the condition of policy and until and unless it is proved that insured has committed the breach of condition of policy willfully the insurance cannot get the benefit on this count hence the findings of the MACT on issues 3 and 5 are liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004 (1) TAC 321 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and others (2004) (1) TAC 366 (SC). 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004 (1) TAC 321 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and others (2004) (1) TAC 366 (SC). 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the MACT has passed the award after considering the evidence on record and it was rightly held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation as it was the case of breach of policy and that the driver of the jeep was not having a valid and effective licence. Mrs. Archana Mantri, the learned counsel for the insurance company has placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai and others 200(2) TAC 1 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others (MACD 2008 (SC) 382 Rambabu Tiwari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACD 2008 (SC) 351, New India Assurance Co. ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal ( MACD 2008 (SAC) 21 National Insurance Company vs. Ramavtar and others (2006 R.A.R. 588 (Raj.) Mr. Virendra Agrawal and Mr. Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel for the insurance company also placed reliance on Bhuwan Singh vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another (MACD 2009 (SC) 168, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Magi and others (MACD 2010(1) (Raj.) 109, New India; Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shakuntala Bai and others (MACD 2011 (1) Raj.) 10 Sardari and Others vs. Sushil Kumar and others (2008 (2) TAC 369 (SC)-6. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the award passed by the MACT. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the Three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 (Three Judge Bench), in which the Apex court summarised the various issues relating to insurance policy conditions and the fake licence etc. as under : 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) chapter XI of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. as under : 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) chapter XI of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his Qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in subsection (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims. 8. From the above summary of the Apex Court judgment it is clear that an insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2) (a)(ii) of the said Act. 8. From the above summary of the Apex Court judgment it is clear that an insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2) (a)(ii) of the said Act. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish "breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under section 149(2) of the Act. The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. 9. The other rulings cited by the counsel for the parties are not applicable to the facts of the case as against the Three Judge Bench Judgment in National insurance Co. vs. Swaran Singh (supra). 10. On the basis of summary summarised above in the judgment of the Apex Court, the respondent No.3 has been able to prove its case on issues No. 3,4 and 5. In the instant case there is no dispute about the rashness and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep i.e. respondent No.1. The claimants produced six witnesses and documents FIR Ex.1, Charge sheet Ex. 2, Naksa Moka Ex. 3 in order to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in diriving the jeep which hit the truck and accident took place. I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT and in my view the issue No.1 was rightly decided by the MACT in favour of the claimants that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. Issue No.3 related to the fact that the respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the jeep on the date of the accident and hence the respondent No. 3 insurance company of the jeep was not liable to pay the compensation. Issue No.3 related to the fact that the respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the jeep on the date of the accident and hence the respondent No. 3 insurance company of the jeep was not liable to pay the compensation. The burden of proof of this issue was on the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 in their reply stated before the MACT that the respondent No.l, driver of the jeep Aslam was not having valid and effective licence. In support of his claim the respondent No.3 stated that on enquiry from the RTO Firozabad, who has issued the licence informed that on 14.9.94 in the name of Aslam no licence was issued by his office. To prove this fact the respondent No.3 produced the evidence of NAW 1 Gyan Chand Bhati. In relation to issue No.3, the MACT in its judgment observed as under : ^^eSaus mHk; i{kksa dks lquk gS ,oa i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k gSA tgka rd izn'kZ Mh-4 ykbZlsaflax vkWFkksfjVh dh fjiksVZ dk iz'u gS] bldh iq'r ij 22-7-2000 rkjh[k gS rFkk vksfj;UVy b';ksjsUl dEiuh ds uke tkjh fd;k tkuk Hkh vafdr gS] LVkEi foØsrk ds Hkh gLrk{kj gS rFkk izn'kZ Mh-4 esa ;g ckr fy[kh gqbZ gS fd izoh.kdqekj mik/;k; us muls fjiksVZ ekaxh FkhA ijUrq muds dk;kZy; ds vfHkys[kd s vuqlkj fnukad 14-9-94 dks dksbz uEcj ugha pyk gS bl izdkj esa ;g ikrk gwa fd fQjkstkckn ¼mÙkjizns'k½ ds ykblsaflax vkWFkksfjVh us tks fjiksVZ nh gS] mlds vuqlkj fnukad 14-9-94 dks muds ;gka ls vlye vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d ds uke ls dksbZ ykblsUl tkjh ugha gqvk gSA tgka rd izn'kZ Mh-4 ij ykblsaflax vkWFkksfjVh ds gLrk{kj ugha gksus dk iz'u gS] ;g izn'kZ Mh-4 ds voyksdu ls Lor% gh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd bl ij , ls ch ykblsaflax vkWFkksfjVh ds gLrk{kj gSaA vr% eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd oä nq?kZVuk vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d eksgEen vlye ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh pkyd vuqKk i= ugha FkkA vr% ;g fook|d blh izdkj r; fd;k tkrk gSA** I am in agreement with the findings of the MACT on issue No.3. The respondent No.3 has been able to prove that the respondent No.l driver of jeep namely Mohammed Aslam was not having valid and effective licence as on 14.9.94 no such licence was issued by the licencing authority Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh). The respondent No.3 has been able to prove that the respondent No.l driver of jeep namely Mohammed Aslam was not having valid and effective licence as on 14.9.94 no such licence was issued by the licencing authority Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh). On issue No.5 which was related to using of jeep for commercial purposes and the respondent No.3 was not liable for paying any compensation on account of accident to the claimants. The burden of proving this fact was on the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 proved this fact and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 stated that AW-1 Geeta Devi in her cross examination stated that she paid fare of Rs. 400/- to jeep holder. The insurance company stated that the insurance was only for private use and the jeep owner used the jeep for commercial purposes. The insurance company in support of its contention further produced the evidence of NAW 1 Gyan Chand Bhati, who has stated in his statement that insured vehicle was insured for private use only and it was further stated in the insurance policy that if the vehicle is used for taxi purposes the insurance company would not be liable for any damages etc. The MACT in relation to issue No. 5 observed as under : ^^eSaus mHk; i{kksa dks lquk gSA izn'kZ Mh-1 chek ikWfylh ij lh ls Mh ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS okgu dk mi;ksx futh dk;Z ds fy, fd;k tk;sxck rFkk bZ ls ,Q esa Hkh ;g 'krZ vafdr gS fd ;g ikWfylh fdjk;s vFkok fjokMZ ds mi;ksx dks doj ugha djsxhA ,-M-1 xhrknsoh us ftjg esa bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mUgksaus nq?kZVukxzLr thi okys dks pkj lks :i;s fdjk;s ds fn;s FksA bl izdkj esa ;g ikrk gwW fd ;g thi nq?kZVuk ds le; fdjk;s ij pyk;h tk jgh Fkh] tks chek dEiuh dh 'krksZ dk Li"V mYya?ku gS ,slh fLFkfr esa chek dEiuh dks izfrdj jkf'k vnk djus ds fy, mÙkjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA vr% ;g fook|d vizkFkhZ la[;k rhu ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA** 11. I am in agreement with the findings on issue No. 5 arrived at by the MACT. The MACT rightly decided issue No.5 in favour of the respondent No.3. I am in agreement with the findings on issue No. 5 arrived at by the MACT. The MACT rightly decided issue No.5 in favour of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 was rightly held not liable for paying the compensation as the jeep was used for commercial purposes which was clearly against the conditions of the insurance policy issued to the jeep owner. 12. Now I may consider the appeals filed by the claimants in relation to enhancement of the compensation amount in the common award, granted by the MACT one by one. SBCMA NO. 730/2005 (Claim Case No.399/2004) 13. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Suwa Lal. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- to the claimants. The learned counsel for the claimants stated that the deceased was aged 50 year and was earning more than Rs. 5600/- per month as Security Supervisor. The claimants produced Ex. 22 A and 23 A stating therein that the deceased was earning Rs. 4485 and Rs.5600/- per month. The pay certificates were issued by the private company. The person who has issued the certificates has not been produced. The MACT on account of the fact that in the year 1999, a person working in a private firm cannot get more than Rs. 2,000/- and assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,000/- and one third was deducted from it to be incurred by him on himself. In this manner the income of the deceased was assessed to be Rs. 16,000 per year. The MACT applied multiplier of 13. In this manner the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,000/-. For creamation the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. For love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 2,15,000/- were awarded. Out of this amount Rs. 56,000/- were already paid as interim relief to the claimants and out of this only Rs. 1,59,000/- were directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 6 %. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and in my opinion the MACT rightly granted Rs. 2,15,000/- for the death of Sua Lal and multiplier of 13 was rightly applied. This finding of the MACT cannot said to be perverse. The claimants in this manner are not entitled to claim any further amount. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and in my opinion the MACT rightly granted Rs. 2,15,000/- for the death of Sua Lal and multiplier of 13 was rightly applied. This finding of the MACT cannot said to be perverse. The claimants in this manner are not entitled to claim any further amount. The appeal filed by the claimants thus deserves to be dismissed. SBCMA NO. 744/2005 ( Claim Case No.400/2004) 14. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Gulab Devi. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 1,39,000/- to the claimants. The learned counsel for the claimants stated that the deceased was aged 53 year and she was doing the work of sewing. The MACT assumed the earning of deceased Gulab Devi being house wife and doing the work of sewing to be Rs. 1500/- per month and in this manner the MACT determined her annual income Rs. 18,000/-. Out of which one third was assessed to be incurred by her on herself. Since the deceased was 53 year of age, multiplier of 11 was applied. In this manner the MACT awarded Rs. 1,32,000/- on account of death of Gulab Devi. For cremation the MACT awarded Rs. 2,000/-. For love and affection the MACT awarded Rs. 5,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 1,39,000/- were awarded. Out of this amount Rs. 56,000/- were already paid as interim relief to the claimants and out of this only Rs. 83,000/- were directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 6 %. I have gone through the findings of the MACT and in my opinion the MACT rightly granted Rs. 1,39,000/- for the death of Gulab Devi and multiplier of 11 was rightly applied. This finding of the MACT cannot said to be perverse. The claimants in this manner are not entitled to claim any further amount. The appeal filed by the claimants thus deserves to be dismissed. SBCMA NO. 656/2005 ( Claim Case No.401/2004) 15. This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries received by her. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that on account of the injuries received by her she will suffer in entire life and the MACT has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that on account of the injuries received by her she will suffer in entire life and the MACT has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 5,000/-. I have considered this argument. As per the MLR Ex.P/5 the appellant received only one injury and no x-ray report was produced before the MACT. As per Ex. 42 Discharge Ticket she remained in Hospital for two days and on account of medical expenses she produced receipt of Rs. 1345/-only. The MACT on the basis of the injury received by her and the expenses incurred by her awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lump sum and this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the MACT. The appellant is not entitled for any further amount. The award of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant is just and proper. The appeal for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. SBCMA NO. 692/2005 ( Claim Case No.402/2004) 16. This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries received by him. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that on account of the injuries received by him he will suffer in entire life and the MACT has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 7,000/-. I have considered this argument. As per the MLR Ex.P/12 the appellant has not suffered any fracture. The appellant has not produced any proof regarding remaining in the Hospital. On account of medical expenses he produced receipt of Rs. 1450/- only. The MACT on the basis of the injury received by him and the expenses incurred by him awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- in lump sum and this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the MACT. The appellant is not entitled for any further amount. The award of Rs. 7,000/- to the appellant is just and proper. The appeal for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. SBCMA NO. 743/2005 ( Claim Case No.403/2004) 17. This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries received by her. The appellant is not entitled for any further amount. The award of Rs. 7,000/- to the appellant is just and proper. The appeal for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. SBCMA NO. 743/2005 ( Claim Case No.403/2004) 17. This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries received by her. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that on account of the injuries received by her she will suffer in entire life and the MACT has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 3,000/-. I have considered this argument. As per the MLR Ex.P.13 the appellant received only one injury and no fracture was found. As per Ex. 43 Discharge Ticket she remained in Hospital for one day and on account of medical expenses she produced receipt of Rs. 265/- only. The MACT on the basis of the injury received by her and the expenses incurred by her awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in lump sum and this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the MACT. The appellant is not entitled for any further amount. The award of Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant is just and proper. The appeal for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. SBCMA NO. 736/2005 ( Claim case No.404/2004) 18. This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries received by her. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that on account of the injuries received by her she will suffer in entire life and the MACT has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 9,000/-. I have considered this argument. As per the MLR Ex.P/15 the appellant received three injuries and no fracture was found. As per Ex. 47 Discharge Ticket she remained in Hospital for four days and on account of medical expenses she produced receipt of Rs. 2150/- only. The MACT on the basis of the injuries received by her and the expenses incurred by her awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- in lump sum and this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the MACT. 2150/- only. The MACT on the basis of the injuries received by her and the expenses incurred by her awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- in lump sum and this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the MACT. The appellant is not entitled for any further amount. The award of Rs. 9,000/- to the appellant is just and proper. The appeal for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. SBCMA NO. 746/2005 ( Claim Case No.405/2004) 19. This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries received by him. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that on account of the injuries received by him he will suffer in entire life and the MACT has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 6,000/-. I have considered this argument. As per the MLR Ex.P/17 the appellant has received three injuries and he has not suffered any fracture. The appellant has not produced any proof regarding remaining in the Hospital. On account of medical expenses he produced receipt of Rs. 1000/-only. The MACT on the basis of the injuries received by him and the expenses incurred by him awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- in lump sum and this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the MACT. The appellant is not entitled for any further amount. The award of Rs. 6,000/- to the appellant is just and proper. The appeal for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. SBCMA NO. 559/2005 (Claim Case No.407/2004) 20. This appeal has been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries received by him. The MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant stated that on account of the injuries received by him he will suffer in entire life and the MACT has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 15,000/-. I have considered this argument. As per the MLR Ex. P.71 the appellant has received four injuries and' as per Ex. 72 he received fracture of femur bone. The appellant has not produced any proof regarding remaining in the Hospital. 15,000/-. I have considered this argument. As per the MLR Ex. P.71 the appellant has received four injuries and' as per Ex. 72 he received fracture of femur bone. The appellant has not produced any proof regarding remaining in the Hospital. On account of medical expenses he produced receipt of Rs. 34/- only. The MACT on the basis of the injury and the fracture received by him and the expenses incurred by him awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in lump sum and this finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the MACT. The appellant is not entitled for any further amount. The award of Rs. 15,000/- to the appellant is just and proper. The appeal for enhancement of compensation deserves to be rejected. 21. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, the misc. appeals Nos. 692/2005, 559/2005, 656/2005, 746/2005, 743/2005, 736/2005, 730/2005, and 744/2005 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, deserve to be rejected and are hereby rejected. The common award dated 4.12.2004 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Beawar (Addl. District Judge Fast Track Beawar) in MACT cases Nos. 399/2004, 400/2004, 401/2004, 402/2004, 403/2004, 404/2004, 405/2004 and 407/2004 stands confirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.