JUDGMENT S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. - These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. M.A.C.T., Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for brevity) in MVC No. 301/2011. 2. Though these appeals are listed for admission with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal. The parties to these appeals are referred to by their rankings before the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are: The claimant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that had taken place on 14.02.2006. It is the case of the claimant that on 14.02.2006 when he was traveling in a motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-07/J-4652 as a pillion rider from Chaukul to Savantawadi, the rider of the motor vehicle who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against a pick up van bearing registration No. KA-25/B-3291 and as a result, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital where he was treated as an inpatient. The claimant suffered disability having regard to the injuries in the accident in question. After service of notice in the claim petition, respondent No. 2-insurer had entered appearance and filed statement of objections. Respondent No. 1 was placed ex-parte. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award had granted compensation of Rs. 1,10,040/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 2-insurer has filed MFA No. 22316/2013 while the claimant has filed MFA No. 24855/2013 seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submitted before this Court that the rider of the motorcycle in which the claimant was traveling had no licence and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability on the insurer. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submitted before this Court that the rider of the motorcycle in which the claimant was traveling had no licence and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability on the insurer. He submits that there was a fundamental breach to the policy conditions and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have saddled the liability to pay compensation on the insurer. He also submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The Tribunal has granted interest at 9% per annum whereas this Court has been consistently granting interest at 6% per annum. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that in the charge sheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle, Section 3 of the Act has not been invoked and therefore it cannot be said that he did not have a driving licence at the time of accident. He submits that the claimant was working as a supervisor with the contractor and therefore the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all other heads is on the lower side and seeks enhancement of the same. 6. I have carefully considered the rival arguments addressed by the learned counsels appearing for the parties in these appeals and also perused the material evidence available on record. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 14.02.2006, the motorcycle in which the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider had met with an accident and in the said accident, the claimant had suffered injuries. It is also undisputed that the motorcycle in which the claimant was traveling was having effective valid insurance policy issued by the insurer herein. The claimant had suffered the fracture of right patella and also fracture of lateral wall of the right orbit and cicatricial entropion with trichiasis right. In addition to the same, the claimant had also suffered other simple injuries. It is also not in dispute that the police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle in question and in the said charge sheet admittedly Section 3 of the Act was not invoked. In addition to the same, the claimant had also suffered other simple injuries. It is also not in dispute that the police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle in question and in the said charge sheet admittedly Section 3 of the Act was not invoked. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant since the police after investigation have not invoked Section 3 of the Act against the accused who was the rider of the motorcycle in question, it has to be necessarily presumed that the police have not booked a case against the accused rider for not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Though learned counsel for the insurer has submitted that the Insurance Company had issued notice to the owner of the motorcycle requesting him to produce the driving licence of the rider of the motorcycle, it cannot be held for that reason, that the rider of the motorcycle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of accident. 8. Further admittedly the insurer of the motorcycle has not made any attempt before the Tribunal to summon the owner of the motorcycle or the rider of the motorcycle and examine them. No application is filed before the Tribunal as against the owner or the driver to produce the licence or particulars nor any particulars was obtained from the concerned transport authority to prove that the driver was not holding valid licence. In the case of Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Basavaraj and another, 2015 ACJ 1018 , the co-ordinate bench of this Court has held that in the absence of any material on record to draw any inference that the driver did not hold licence, it is improper to hold that the insurer has been able to establish the breach of conditions of the policy and therefore the Tribunal was justified in imposing liability on the insurer. Therefore, I find no error in the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to saddling the liability to pay compensation on the insurer of the offending motorcycle. 9. Therefore, I find no error in the order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to saddling the liability to pay compensation on the insurer of the offending motorcycle. 9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the accident had taken place in the year 2006 and as per the chart maintained by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority for the purpose of disposal of motor accident cases in Lok Adalath, the notional income of the claimant should have been taken at Rs. 3,750/- per month where as the Tribunal has taken it at Rs. 3,500/-. If the income is taken at Rs. 3,750/- per month, the compensation towards loss of earnings due to disability would be Rs. 72,900/- as against Rs. 68,040/- awarded by the Tribunal. Having regard to the number of fracture injuries and also considering the nature and period of treatment undergone by the claimant, I am of the opinion that towards pain and suffering, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation in place of Rs. 20,000/-. Under the head of medical and other incidental expenses, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/-. Towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness and towards loss of partial vision of right eye, the claimant is together entitled for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as against Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 7,500/- towards loss of earning during laid up period. Therefore, the claimant is totally entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,55,400/- towards compensation as against Rs. 1,10,040/- granted by the Tribunal. 10. However the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the same is reduced to 6% per annum having regard to the fact that consistently this Court has been granting interest at 6% per annum. In view of the order dated 23.06.2018 passed by this Court while condoning the delay caused in filing the appeal, claimant will not be entitled for interest for the delayed period of 245 days on the enhanced amount. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Both the Miscellaneous First Appeals are partly allowed. ii. The insurer shall deposit the balance compensation amount awarded with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iii. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Both the Miscellaneous First Appeals are partly allowed. ii. The insurer shall deposit the balance compensation amount awarded with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iii. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement. iv. The terms of disbursement and deposit etc., as passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.