JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Both the misc. appeals arise out of a common judgment, hence same are being decided together. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 436/2018 2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 09.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Court, Community Riots), Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case No. 202/2015 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 9,69,728/- to the claimants-respondents. 3. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the vehicle in question was purchased by the owner on 31.08.2011 and the same was registered by the Transport Department on 12.09.2011. Counsel submits that the accident occurred on 19.11.2011 and at the time of accident, the owner of the vehicle was not having permit to play the vehicle. Counsel further submits that after verification from the Transport Department, a certificate was issued which indicates that the vehicle in question was given permit to ply the same on record with effect from 07.05.2012 to 06.05.2017. Counsel also submits that these documents were available on the record, but the Tribunal has not considered the same and fastened liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents. Counsel submits that in spite of service of notices upon the driver and owner, they did not appear before the Tribunal, as a result of which ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. Counsel submits that even before this Court also, the driver and owner have remained ex-parte. 4. Counsel submits that as per the judgment of Delhi High Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Devi Deen & Ors., and another connected matter (MAC.APP.665/2013 with MAC.APP.666/2013) decided on 25.05.2016, the onus of Insurance Company stands discharged after submissions of the relevant documents on record and now the onus shifts upon the driver and owner to prove that whether they were having any valid permit to ply the vehicle. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, findings recorded by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 5. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, findings recorded by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submits that no document was produced by the appellant-Insurance Company that on the date of accident, the vehicle was having any permit or not? Counsel submits that no witness from the Department of Transport was produced in the witness box by the appellant-Insurance Company, hence the Tribunal has rightly held that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount to the claimants-respondents. 6. Heard and considered the arguments raised by the both sides. 7. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that vehicle in question was purchased on 31.08.2011 and the same was registered on 12.09.2011 while the accident has occurred on 19.11.2011. Perusal of the documents (Ex. A3) clearly indicates that the permit was granted to the owner of the vehicle to play the vehicle on 07.05.2012. Looking to the said documents, it is clear that the owner of vehicle was not having any permit to ply the vehicle at the time of accident, hence there was a breach of policy. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2018 MACD (3) (SC) 202 has dealt with the identical issue and held that the Insurance Company would pay the amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents and recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 8. In view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of by modifying the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants and the appellant-Insurance Company would be free to recover the said amount from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 715/2018:- 10. Instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the award. 11. Counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that in the accident, claimant-appellant has suffered 42.33% permanent disability and the Tribunal has granted a very meager amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- under the head of permanent disability and loss of income. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 715/2018:- 10. Instant appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the award. 11. Counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that in the accident, claimant-appellant has suffered 42.33% permanent disability and the Tribunal has granted a very meager amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- under the head of permanent disability and loss of income. Counsel further submits that after the accident, the claimant-appellant has undergone operations seven times and looking to his permanent disability the claimant-appellant has sustained injuries on his hip and as per the opinion of the Doctor, in future, further operation of the appellant is required to be done. Counsel also submits that under these facts and circumstances, the total amount of compensation of Rs. 9,69,728/- is not an adequate amount which needs suitable enhancement. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. He submits that looking to the permanent disability and the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation of Rs. 1,54,000/- which needs no further enhancement by this Court. 13. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides and perused the record. 14. It is not in dispute that the appellant has sustained 42.33% permanent disability and it is also not in dispute that after the accident, the appellant has undergone operations for seven times. So under these circumstances, award of Rs. 1,54,000/- is not adequate. This Court of the view that further the claimant-appellant is entitled to get amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under these heads as full and final compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is enhanced in the present case. 15. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 09.10.2017 within a period of two month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Enhanced amount shall carry @ 6% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till actual payment is made. 16. It is made clear that after making the payment of the enhanced amount, the respondent-Insurance Company would at liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of in above terms. 18. 16. It is made clear that after making the payment of the enhanced amount, the respondent-Insurance Company would at liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of in above terms. 18. All pending application(s) in both the appeals, if any, also stand disposed of. 19. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.