JUDGMENT : S.K. Seth, J. This appeal by the claimant for enhancement. On 30-10-2004, appellant met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries in the left leg i.e. fracture of Patela and femur bone. He was admitted in the hospital and remained there as an indoor patient from 30-10-2004 to 6-11-2004. Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 73,100/- as compensation, while awarding the amount of compensation, Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground of breach of policy. Hence, this appeal for enhancement as well as to saddle the liability on the Insurance Company. 2. The first question relating to enhancement may be considered. Appellant at the time of accident was employed as a Teacher. He was getting the monthly salary of Rs. 7,725/-. On account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he remained hospitalised for different spells on 3 occasions. In all, the remained on medical leave for a period of three months as is clear from the leave certificate vide Exhibit P/21. The doctor was examined to prove that appellant had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 49% and that here is shortening of leg One inch. It has also come in the evidence that because of shortening of leg, appellant has lost his natural gait and walk with limp. Claims Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as general damages on account of aforesaid injuries and permanent disability, which, in our considered opinion, seems to be on lower side. It is contended by the counsel that appellant is unable to walk without support and he has to suffer these injuries throughout his life. 3. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lakh Fifty Thousand) instead of Rs. 73,100/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, would be the just and proper amount of compensation payable to the appellant, which will take care of various heads. 4. Now coming to the second question, Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was caused by the minor who was having no driving licence. Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance to pay compensation only on this ground. 5. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 2013 ACJ 1944 : AIR 2013 SC 2262 , S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance to pay compensation only on this ground. 5. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 2013 ACJ 1944 : AIR 2013 SC 2262 , S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court, reported in 2008 ACJ 1307 : 2008 AIR SCW 2075, Sardari and others v. Sushil Kumar and others, and 2011 ACJ 1677 : AIR 2011 SC 2436 , Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain and others. 6. We have gone through the decisions. In our considered opinion, the decision reported in Tyyapan, ( AIR 2013 SC 2262 ) (supra) does not help the appellant inasmuch as it was not a case of minor, but that was a case where a person had a driving licence in light motor vehicle, but he was driving a Maxicab at the time of accident. The Insurance Company tried to regal out from the liability. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of case on hand. 7. In our considered opinion, the decisions given in the case of Jawahar Singh, AIR 2011 SC 2436 (supra) is more closed to the facts of the case because that was also a case where the minor caused the accident and the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court which saddled the liability on Insurance Company with direction to pay and recover from the owner and driver. 8. In view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Singh, we direct the respondent Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant and recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein above. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till it is actually paid. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, appeal stands disposed off to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.