ORDER : ROHIT ARYA, J. 1. The miscellaneous appeal Nos. 1717 and 1719 of 2009 by the Insurance Company against impugned award and 69 of 2010 by the claimant, Veereshwar Singh for enhancement of compensation in claim case No. 39/2009 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed challenging the common award dated 22nd September, 2009 passed by III Additional Judge I Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in claim case Nos. 39 and 47 of 2009. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid three appeals, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the M.A. No. 1717/2009 have been dealt with. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of these appeal in narrow compass are to the effect that in the intervening night of 19th and 20th April, 2006 while returning back to home after attending a marriage of son of village-mate, Rajendra Singh, claimant, Veereshwar Singh being driven by his own Maruti Car No. MP-07/E 3122 accompanied by his friends Ranjit Gurjar, Rajveer Singh and Akhilesh Sharma sitting in the car by passing through Gole Ka Mandir and when the car reached near the Physical College gate on the Race Course Road, Gwalior, the offending tractor No. MP30/M-8947 with trolley No. MP30/M-9819 being driven by respondent No. 2, Girish Sharma negligently and rashly was suddenly without any signs or indicators stopped on the main road as a result the car collided with the trolley from behind and the accident had occurred thereby. The claimant and the co-traveller in the car, Akhilesh Sharma sustained grievous injuries on various parts of their persons. They were taken to the Sahar Hospital by the police for immediate treatment. 3. Claimant in claim case No. 39/2009 was aged about 44 years at the time of incident. Because of the incident, he had sustained injuries in abdomen, spleen, pancreas, fracture in C-2 of head and dislocation, chest etc., as per MLC (exhibit P/10), he had also underwent surgery for posterior fusion of CV junction at Fortis Hospital, Noida. 4. Counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant has raised contention that the vehicle involved in the accident was tractor No. MP30/M-9818 with trolley No. MP30/M-9818 which was not insured and not the offending vehicle No. MP30/M-8947 with trolley No. M-9819 insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 4. Counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant has raised contention that the vehicle involved in the accident was tractor No. MP30/M-9818 with trolley No. MP30/M-9818 which was not insured and not the offending vehicle No. MP30/M-8947 with trolley No. M-9819 insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal in both the claim cases deserves to be set aside. On merits, it is submitted that offending car was driven by the claimant under intoxication who is habitual drunkened. Hence, there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car and Tribunal committed an error in that context. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: "(i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 476 (ii) Raj Rani and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 654 (iii) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tanjore, rep. by its MD Vs. Natarajan and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 137 (iv) Subhash Chand and Others Vs. Satya Rani and Others, (2013) 171 PLR 329 (v) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahila Kalawati and Others--> (vi) 2012 (4) T.A.C. 367 (Gau.), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Uttar Phukand and others; (vii) MACD 2008(2) (MP) 827 Reena (Smt.) W/o. late Amrendra Pandey and ors v. Gajendra Singh S/o. Ganpatsingh and ors; (viii)and an unreported judgment by a coordinated Bench of this Court at Gwalior in M.A. No. 11/2005, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Krishna Bai and others decided on 26/11/2013." 5. Smt. Meena Singhal, counsel for the claimant/appellant by referring to various documents on record including, the statement of driver, Girish Sharma and the eye-witness, Ranjit Singh submitted that the offending vehicle registered with tractor No. MP30/M-8947 with trolley No. M-9818 and not tractor No. MP30/M-9818 with trolley No. MP30/M-9819 as claimed. The contention that Veereshwar Singh had driven the car under intoxication denied as there is no evidence on record in that context. By taking through the medical bills submitted by the claimant, Veereshwar Singh and statements of Dr. Rewati Raman (P.W. 4), Dr. Arun Kumar (P.W. 5), Dr. deepak Vats (P.W. 6), Dr. The contention that Veereshwar Singh had driven the car under intoxication denied as there is no evidence on record in that context. By taking through the medical bills submitted by the claimant, Veereshwar Singh and statements of Dr. Rewati Raman (P.W. 4), Dr. Arun Kumar (P.W. 5), Dr. deepak Vats (P.W. 6), Dr. Arvind Singh (P.W. 7), it is further submitted that the statements of these Doctors clearly indicate that the claimant/appellant had suffered serious injuries because of which sustained disability to look after the vocation of agricultural operations resulting into loss of earning capacity and therefore, the compensation granted to the claimant/appellant is very much on the lower side under various heads, and has not awarded any compensation towards various other heads. Hence, claimant seeks enhancement of the same. She has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of her contentions. "(1) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surbhan, (1996) 9 SCC 46 (2) Mahila Dhanwanti and Others Vs. Kulwant and Others, AIR 1994 MP 44 , (3) MACD 2009(2) (M.P.) 510, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (The) v. Smt. Kamli W/o. Khema Bhil and Ors. (4) MACD 2011(2) (M.P.) 617, Khesharsingh v. Bhana and Ors. (5) Nanhu Singh Vs. Jaheer and Others, (2006) ACJ 803 (6) IV (2011) ACC 226, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. M.K. Subha and Ors. (7) Maya Azhagar and Another Vs. Thangiah and Another, (2012) ACJ 2529 (8) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ranni and Others, (2011) 6 ADJ 198 : (2011) 4 TAC 117, (9) MACD 2009 (1) (M.P.) 57, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(The) v. Chhogalal S/o. Nandaji and Ors. (10) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gurbachan Singh and Others, (2007) 2 ACC 490 : (2008) ACJ 979 (11) Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 646 (12) Sandhya and Others Vs. Guddu and Others, (2013) 3 ACC 32 (13) Shalini and Others Vs. Harbhajan and Others, (2012) ACJ 2569, (14) Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 530 (15) Laxmi Gontiya and Another Vs. Nand Lal Tahalramani and Others, (1999) ACJ 241 (16) Bodige Padma and Others Vs. Makula Shanker and Others, (2013) ACJ 1844 : (2012) 5 ALT 559 (17) Santoshbai and Others Vs. Satish Kumar and Others, (2011) ACJ 2006 : (2011) 2 TAC 680 (18) Rajni Soni and Others Vs. Nand Lal Tahalramani and Others, (1999) ACJ 241 (16) Bodige Padma and Others Vs. Makula Shanker and Others, (2013) ACJ 1844 : (2012) 5 ALT 559 (17) Santoshbai and Others Vs. Satish Kumar and Others, (2011) ACJ 2006 : (2011) 2 TAC 680 (18) Rajni Soni and Others Vs. Hemraj and Others, (2009) ACJ 551 (19) Meera Devi and Another Vs. H.R.T.C. and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 511 (20) Kumari Kiran Vs. Sajjan Singh, (2014) AIRSCW 6328 : (2014) 10 SCALE 462 (21) 2010 ACJ 656 , T. Subramaniam and Others v. Banwari Gurjar and Others. (22) MACD 2014 (2) (M.P.) 1060, Narayan Kahar and Ors. v. Mukesh Kumar Chourasiya and Anr. (23) 2015 (1) ACCD 126 (M.P.), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Amrita Bai and Others. (24) Santoshbai and Others Vs. Satish Kumar and Others, (2011) ACJ 2006 : (2011) 2 TAC 680 (25) Dhum Singh Vs. Shailendra and others, (2012) ACJ 1132 (26) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambabu Singh and Others, (2008) ACJ 523 (27) MACD 2014 (1) (M.P.) 408, Naim v. Sudheer and Two Ors. (28) Jiju Kuruvila and Others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 166 (29) MACD 2013 (1) (M.P.) 1, Avdhesh a.k.a. Avadh Kumar S/o. Balkishan Gaur v. Sudama S/o. Premji Patidar and Ors. (30) Raju Vs. Rajender and Others, (2009) ACJ 2060 (31) Usha Rajkhowa and Others Vs. Paramount Industries and Others, (2009) 14 SCC 71 (32) The Krishna Bus Service Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mangli and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 793 (33) Mahila Dhanwanti and Others Vs. Kulwant and Others, AIR 1994 MP 44 . (34) Fizabai and Others Vs. Nemichand and Others, (1993) 38 MPLJ 38 (35) Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 389 (36) 2010 ACC 129 (DB), United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. v. S. Saravanan and Anr. (37) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aslam Ajgarali Makrani and Another, (2013) 4 ALLMR 183 (38) V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and Another, (2014) 5 SCALE 772 (39) S.C. Joshi Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and Others, (2014) 2 ACC 674 : (2014) ACJ 442 (40) 1955 ACJ 366, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. And others." 6. By the aforesaid award, two claim cases; 39/2009 and 47/2009 have been decided. M. Malathi and Another, (2014) 5 SCALE 772 (39) S.C. Joshi Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and Others, (2014) 2 ACC 674 : (2014) ACJ 442 (40) 1955 ACJ 366, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. And others." 6. By the aforesaid award, two claim cases; 39/2009 and 47/2009 have been decided. Claimant in claim case No. 39/2009 has sustained grievous injuries while the other injured, Akhilesh Sharma had died and his heirs have filed claim case No. 47/2009. 7. The Tribunal has found as follows: "(a) that, the accident had taken place on 19/04/2006 due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor No. MP30/M 8947 with trolley No. MP30/M-9818 which collided with Maruti Car No. MP07/E-3122 wherein Akhilesh Sharma, the bread earner of claimants in claim case No. 47/2009, claimant, Veereshwar Singh in claim case No. 39/2009, Ranjit Singh Gurjar, and Rajveer were travelling; (b) that, due to aforesaid accident, Akhilesh Sharma died and the claimant in claim case No. 39/2009 sustained serious injuries and respondent No. 2 Girish Sharma was driver, respondent No. 3, Janak Singh (since deceased) through legal heir, Smt. Moonga Devi styled as owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant is Insurance Company in the claim cases; (c) that, in the FIR, Final Report and Naksha Panchnama, trolley No. MP30/M-9818 had been written, however, in seizure memo (exhibit P/2), immediately after the incident, trolley No. MP-30/M-9819 was seized. There was no challenge to seizure. Hence, it can be said that the number of trolley is MP-30/M-9819. However, relying on various judgments in paragraph 27, it was observed that on technical ground that in FIR by mistakenly wrong number of offending vehicle was mentioned, it will not come in the way of decision in the claim case. Therefore, the Insurance Company will not get any advantage out of it. (d) that, in the claim case, it is asserted that the actual offending vehicle is tractor No. MP-30/M-8947, however, with the permission of the Tribunal, the correction was permitted to correct trolley No. MP-30/M-9819; (e) that, the Insurance Company has not made any written complaint immediately as regards offending tractor No. MP30/M-9818 with trolley No. MP30/M-9818 but not tractor No. MP30/M-8947 with trolley No. M-9819. (f) that, during investigation, it was established that the offending tractor No. MP30/M-8947 with trolley No. MP-30/M-9819. (f) that, during investigation, it was established that the offending tractor No. MP30/M-8947 with trolley No. MP-30/M-9819. More over, the criminal proceedings were also initiated in respect of the seized vehicle; (g) that, the Insurance policy was alive but there was no breach of policy. Hence, the Insurance company and the driver/owner of offending vehicle held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants; and (h) On the basis of the evidence and the material that came on record, the Tribunal assessed the earning of the deceased, Akhilesh Sharma and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,56,184/- to the claimants in Claim Case No. 47 of 2009. The amount was directed to be distributed to the claimants in accordance with proportion made in sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 66 of the impugned award." Accordingly, Tribunal has dealt with the issues as regards quantum of compensation to the claimants. 8. The claimants have confined to the compensation so awarded by Tribunal. However, the Insurance Company has filed M.A. No. 1719/2009 questioning the award of compensation; 9. The claimant in claim case No. 39/2009, Veereshwar Singh aggrieved by the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,97,367/- has preferred M.A. No. 62/2010. 10. Counsel for Insurance Company has placed heavy reliance on exhibit D/2, amendments made in claim application as regards the change of number of offending vehicle in the context of one mentioned in FIR and an application, exhibit D/4 submitted Ranjeet Singh to the Station House Officer, Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior to the effect that under stress of the accident and has also received the injuries, the registered number of the offending vehicle could not correctly mentioned in the FIR No. 168/2006 on account of hearsay of number by the people assembled at the time of incident mentioned wrong number of offending vehicle and hence, the number of the offending vehicle be corrected. In support of his application, he has mentioned names of six persons; (1) Arvind Kare (2) Vasudev Sharma (3) Arvind Sharma (4) Ajay Shukla (5) Rakesh Khurasiya and Rajveer Singh. On a query by the Court, the counsel has fairly submitted that during trial, neither written complaint was filed nor any of the aforesaid persons were examined as regards the mention of number of different offending vehicle in the FIR at any stage by the Insurance Company. On a query by the Court, the counsel has fairly submitted that during trial, neither written complaint was filed nor any of the aforesaid persons were examined as regards the mention of number of different offending vehicle in the FIR at any stage by the Insurance Company. Though the argument appears to be lucrative but it loses its significance in the wake of detailed findings recorded after taking into account various judgments in that context by the Tribunal. Hence, the same is hereby negated. 11. In view of the categoric findings recorded by the Tribunal by taking note of various judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the judgments relied on by either parties need not to be adverted to separately as they are not attracted to facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 12. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, it is established from the material available on record that the accident took place by the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. There is no material on record that there was breach of insurance policy by the driver/owner of the vehicle. As such, both the appeal Nos. 1717/2009 and 1719/2009 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company sans merit and are hereby dismissed. 13. The moot question to be addressed upon in M.A. No. 62/2010 is as to whether the Claims Tribunal was justified awarding Rs. 14,97,367/- as against the claim of Rs. 1,14,00,000/-. 14. Counsel for the appellant/claimant in claim case No. 39/2009 asserted that the claimant Veereshwar Singh had received serious injuries and also underwent surgery whereby treated at Gwalior, Delhi and Noida and, therefore, travelled extensively with an assistant for treatment. Hence, under the head of medical bills, the amount awarded has to be increased from Rs. 12,92,367/- at least to Rs. 15,00,000/-. As regards infirmity attributed towards the injuries only Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded whereas it should be enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Towards pain and suffering, the amount awarded is only Rs. 25,000/- and it should be enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. Towards travel expenses, only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded whereas it should be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, for the loss of income due to disability, no amount has been awarded. It is submitted that the claimant has about 54 bighas of agricultural land and because of the accident, there arisen loss of earning capacity. 50,000/-. Towards travel expenses, only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded whereas it should be enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, for the loss of income due to disability, no amount has been awarded. It is submitted that the claimant has about 54 bighas of agricultural land and because of the accident, there arisen loss of earning capacity. The claimant at the time of incident was of 44 years and has to support his wife, three daughters and a son. Hence towards the head of loss of earning of income has to be assessed and accorded compensation looking to the gravity of injuries sustained by claimant. 15. So far as the claim for loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal has dealt with the matter vividly and has found no cogent evidence has been brought on record. The accident is of the year 2006 and there is no medical evidence that the claimant sustained permanent attributable disability. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has given valid and cogent findings. Accordingly, the findings need not be upset in any manner in that context. 16. However, having gone through the impugned award, it is found that the Tribunal has considered all the facts while passing the impugned award, yet looking to the fact that injured/claimant was aged 44 years, and his whole family was dependent upon him for livelihood during the period he was bed-ridden, there was to some extent loss of earning capacity and looking to the other attending circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. Thus, the claimant/appellant is entitled for lump sum enhancement to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only). 17. As such, the total amount awarded to the appellant/claimant in M.A. No. 62/2010 is to the tune of Rs. 15,97,367/- (Rupees fifteen lacs ninety seven thousand three hundred and sixty seven only), which is ordered accordingly to be payable to the claimant as directed by the Tribunal in the same apportionment. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) shall be payable to the claimant within 08 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and in case the enhancement amount is not paid within the period stipulated in this order, the same shall also carry interest at the rate 9% per annum. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) shall be payable to the claimant within 08 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and in case the enhancement amount is not paid within the period stipulated in this order, the same shall also carry interest at the rate 9% per annum. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. 18. With the aforesaid directions, M.A. No. 62/2010 stands allowed and disposed of.