JUDGMENT 1. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, hence the same are being decided together. 2. Both the appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and award dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.379/2014 (101/10) by which claim petition filed by the claimant (now deceased) has been allowed and the Insurance Company has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.6,95,533/- to the claimant along with interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company has submitted the appeal No.3686/2017 before this Court on the ground that there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR and no eye witness of the incident was examined, hence, the claimant has failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta & anr. vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & anr. reported in 1977, ACJ 118, Sunit & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in MACD 2019(1) (SC) 42 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Badami & ors. in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1148/2018. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Badami Devi (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the appeal, upheld the judgment passed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that since the claimant expired during pendency of this appeal, hence, the appeal stands abated and the legal representatives of the injured are not entitled to claim any enhanced compensation. Counsel submitted that at the most legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to get loss of estate of the injured till her date of death. Counsel further submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2009, while the claimant produced her disability certificate showing her disability as 100% in the year 2015. The genuineness of the certificate is doubtful. Counsel submitted that at the most legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to get loss of estate of the injured till her date of death. Counsel further submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2009, while the claimant produced her disability certificate showing her disability as 100% in the year 2015. The genuineness of the certificate is doubtful. Since there was delay in recording the evidence of the claimant and producing the permanent disability certificate on record, hence, the claimants are not entitled to get the benefit of interest for the purpose of delay caused by the claimant herself. Lastly, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the driver and owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness box and they also did not produce the fitness certificate and permit of the vehicle, hence, there was breach of policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to make the payment of compensation. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in MACD 2018(3) (SC) 202. Learned counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner of the vehicle submitted that the vehicle in question was fully insured and no steps were taken by the Insurance Company to produce the relevant documents on record and the Tribunal has considered these facts by turning down the objection taken by the Insurance Company. Hence, the driver and owner of the vehicle are not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was fully insured. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the insurance company and submitted that the claimant was injured and only eye witness of the incident, because she herself sustained injuries in the said accident, hence, the objection taken by the Insurance Company is not tenable in the eye of law. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the insurance company and submitted that the claimant was injured and only eye witness of the incident, because she herself sustained injuries in the said accident, hence, the objection taken by the Insurance Company is not tenable in the eye of law. Counsel further submitted that there is no substance in the argument of Insurance Company that no eye witness of the incident was examined, as the claimant herself is injured with whom the accident has occurred. So, she is the eye witness who has proved the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that the permanent disability certificate has been issued by the Medical Board of three doctors of SMS Medical College, Jaipur and there is no reason to disbelieve the genuineness of the said certificate and apart from other medical documents, available on record and looking to the physical condition of the claimant, when she appeared in the witness box, clearly indicates that she has suffered 100% permanent disability as she was not able to stand properly. Counsel further submitted that the injured sustained 100% permanent disability and she was not able to discharge her daily routine activities and for that purpose, she was required to have an attendant to take care and look after her. Lastly, he argued that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned award, rather the impugned award was passed in lower side, which needs suitable enhancement by this Court. 8. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides. 9. So far as the objection taken by the Insurance Company is concerned that no eye witness of the incident was examined, hence, the claimants have failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, the same is not tenable in the eye of law for the reason that the claimant herself is the injured-eye witness, who has sustained injuries in the accident and by appearing in the witness box, she has not only proved the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle but also proved the injuries sustained by her in the aforesaid accident. There is no weight in the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company that there was delay of one day in lodging the FIR. 10. There is no weight in the arguments raised by counsel for the Insurance Company that there was delay of one day in lodging the FIR. 10. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation provision and the same has been enacted for the benefit of the injured/dependants of the deceased who has sustained injuries in the road accident. Hence, delay of one day in lodging the FIR, cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition filed by the claimants. 11. Bare perusal of the impugned award indicates that while passing the award, the Tribunal has not granted any amount of compensation to the claimant under the head of loss of future amenities as the claimant has sustained 100% permanent disability and she has led her life from the date of accident till her death in the year 2018 by remaining dependant on the services of the attendant. Hence, under these circumstances, the legal representatives of the injured (now deceased) are entitled to get a lump sum compensation amount of Rs.4 lacs. 12. So far as the objection taken by the counsel for Insurance Company is concerned that the fitness certificate and permit of the vehicle were not produced on the record, this issue was dealt with by the Tribunal while passing the award by placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Pushpa & Ors. in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.461/2012 in which this Court has decided the issue in question that when no steps were taken by the Insurance Company to prove this objection by producing the RTO or its report before the Court, then, it cannot be believed that the vehicle was plied without the fitness certificate and valid permit. 13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant-appellants stands partly allowed and the Insurance Company is directed to pay additional amount of compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the claimant-appellants with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of compensation of Rs. 4 lacs to the claimant-appellants with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of compensation of Rs. 4 lacs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.50,000/- in the Joint Saving Bank Account of the claimants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellants-claimants on monthly basis. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s) stand disposed of. 16. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith. 17. Copy of this judgment be placed in the connected appeal.