JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. M.A. No. 3100 of 2010 had been filed by insurance company on the ground that on consideration of the documents the driver was not possessing valid driving licence, therefore, insurance company may be exonerated while M.A. No. 3481 of 2012 has been filed by claimant seeking enhancement being aggrieved by the award dated 20.8.2010 passed in Claim Case No. 7 of 2010 by Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora Distt., Ratlam. In the facts of the case, injured while going on his motor cycle bearing No. MP 43-MB 9466 by his own side was hit by another motorbike bearing No. MP 14-MD 4034 driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side, thereby the claimant received commuted fracture in left leg tibia fibula bone and other injuries, but however, on account of having permanent disability compensation of Rs. 4,98,000 has been prayed for. 2. The Claims Tribunal found the accident proved by rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No. MP 14-MD 4034 driven by respondent No. 1, however, disbelieving the certificate of permanent disability awarded a sum of Rs. 70,981. Out of which Rs. 40,981 has been awarded towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000 for attendant and travelling, Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 for special diet and Rs. 5,000 for loss of earnings. 3. Mr. Mayank Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the insurance company, has strenuously urged that document Exh. D7 is available whereby it is clear that driver of offending motor cycle was possessing a licence of LMV though he was driving a motor cycle. In such circumstances, it cannot be said to be a valid driving licence to drive motor cycle. To prove the aforesaid, officer of the insurance company, Ramlal Malviya, NAW 1, had been examined. Learned counsel submitted that accepting his evidence, insurance company may be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Gwalior Bench of this court in the case of Daljeet Kaur and Others Vs. Fakru and Another (2008) ACJ 949. 4. Per contra, Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the claimant, has strenuously urged that to prove the fact of not possessing a valid driving licence, burden has not been discharged by calling person from R.T.O. by insurance company. Fakru and Another (2008) ACJ 949. 4. Per contra, Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the claimant, has strenuously urged that to prove the fact of not possessing a valid driving licence, burden has not been discharged by calling person from R.T.O. by insurance company. In absence of aforesaid, merely on the basis of evidence of the officer of insurance company, document Exh. D7 cannot be relied upon. In addition thereto, it is submitted that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate, however, accepting the certificate of permanent disability, Exh. P68, compensation may be reasonably enhanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the defence of not possessing valid driving licence can be proved by legal evidence in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Ashique and Others (1998) ACJ 589, and Imtiyaj Ahmad and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (2004) ACJ 267. In the present case, no one has been called from the R.T.O. to prove the fact that licence of LMV was issued only to drive light motor vehicles, i.e., four-wheelers and not to drive two-wheelers. Document Exh. D7 submitted by the insurance company has not been proved by the insurance company by calling person from the R.T.O. to the effect that driver had not applied to drive the two-wheeler with gear or without gear. In such circumstances, in absence of any evidence adduced by insurance company, merely Exh. D7 submitted by the insurance company, the evidence of its officer Ramlal Malviya (NAW 1) cannot be relied as his evidence cannot be treated as legal evidence on the part of the insurance company, therefore, the appeal filed by the insurance company is devoid of any substance, hence, it is dismissed. 6. Now coming to the point of enhancement, it is seen from the record that certificate of permanent disability, Exh. P68, had been produced but the doctor has not proved it stating the fact that it is signed by him and his signature has been put thereupon. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the contents of the said certificate have been stated by the doctor, however, it should be relied upon. P68, had been produced but the doctor has not proved it stating the fact that it is signed by him and his signature has been put thereupon. Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the contents of the said certificate have been stated by the doctor, however, it should be relied upon. In the considered opinion of this court, until and unless the doctor issuing certificate has proved it by proving his signature on certificate, it cannot be relied upon and, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the certificate of permanent disability. In such circumstances, the finding of not accepting the plea of disability appears to be just and proper. It is further seen from the record that injured has suffered compound fracture of tibia fibula bone and while awarding compensation the Tribunal has not granted any amount of compensation under the head of grievous injuries, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the treatment and other papers available on record, compensation of Rs. 40,000 in lump sum in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be awarded for compound fracture of tibia fibula bone. In view of the foregoing discussions, M.A. No. 3100 of 2012 filed by the insurance company stands dismissed. M.A. No. 3481 of 2010 filed by the claimant succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The claimant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 40,000 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. It is made clear that in the present case, on the enhanced amount, court-fees is leviable, however, after payment of court-fees, the claimants would be entitled to get such amount. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.