JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 26.5.2005 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Fast Track No.3) Tonk (in short MACT) in MACT case No. 615/2005 whereby claim petition of the claimant appellant was allowed and he has been allowed compensation in the amount of Rs. 6,231/-. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant appellant on 25.5.2001 while working on road, the respondent No.1 all of a sudden drove the Truck No. RJ 06 G 869 with rash and negligent manner and excessive speed hit the claimant and because of that he sustained grievous injuries. FIR was lodged at Police Station Niwai for the aforesaid accident, in which charge sheet was submitted against respondent. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties five issues were framed. Statements of witnesses were recorded and documents were exhibited. After hearing both the parties, the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 6231/- as compensation. Feeling aggrieved against the award of meager compensation this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Mr. Sandeep Jain, learned counsel appearing for the claimant appellant has argued that the award passed by the MACT in respect of issues 2,4 and 5 is against the law, facts and material available on record. While placing reliance on definition of light motor vehicle, the learned counsel has argued that the weight of the vehicle in question was not exceeding 7500 Kgs., thus it is a light motor vehicle and the finding of the MACT on issue No.4 is liable to be set aside. The claimant is a third party and as per the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Baljit Kaur, on a breach of policy condition then the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and it has a right to recover the amount from the owner. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in NIC v. Swarn Singh AIR 2004 SC 1531 , if the driver was granted licence for any type of vehicle but was driving another type of vehicle then insurance company cannot avoid its liability. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in NIC v. Swarn Singh AIR 2004 SC 1531 , if the driver was granted licence for any type of vehicle but was driving another type of vehicle then insurance company cannot avoid its liability. The MACT has not awarded any amount of compensation in the head of mental and physical agony. The MACT has awarded meager amount in all the head. The MACT has erred in granting interest @ 6 % per annum whereas the interest should have been granted at the @ 18 per cent per annum. 5. I have gone through the award passed by the MACT dated 26.5.2005. The claimant as per the injury report Ex. 4 received only five simple injuries. On X ray also injuries 3 and 4 were found to be simple in nature. Injured Ramjilal in his statement stated that in the treatment he has incurred Rs. 10-15 thousand but he has not submitted any proof regarding admission in the Hospital. He has only submitted medicines expenses bill Ex. 9 to 19 by which they were found to be of Rs. 1231/- only. For the five injuries received by the injured claimant for one injury Rs. 1,000/- was awarded and in this head total Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. The MACT in all awarded Rs. 6231/- only. I have gone through the findings and the material available on record. The compensation awarded Rs. 6231 is just and proper and there is no need for further awarding any amount to the claimant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no need to further award any amount in any other head to the claimant. The appeal filed for enhancement being devoid of merit stands rejected. 6. The misc. appeal filed by the claimant is rejected. The award passed by the MACT is confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******