JUDGMENT : BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. The appellant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in his favour for injuries by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran (Pali) in motor accident claims case No. 44/2005 vide award dated 11.7.2007. 2. The Tribunal has made an award of Rs. 33,180/- against claim of Rs. 33 lacks and odd. 3. The case and claim of the appellant is that on 5.7.2000, the appellant was travelling on a Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ-19-P-4226 from village Sendara to Beawar. Due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by Kamal @ Nathu Ram, the jeep rushed over a big stone as a result whereof its Tyre burst and the people sitting in the Jeep including the claimant appellant sustained injuries. The claimant sustained injury on his right hand and right leg. For the incident aforesaid, an FIR was lodged and after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge-sheet against Kamal @ Nathu Ram. 4. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 35 years and was engaged in making ornaments of gold and silver and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. The appellant has detailed about the expenses meted out by him in getting treatment of the injuries for three months. 5. The learned Tribunal has accepted that the appellant sustained injury in the motor accident due to negligence of the driver of the said offending Jeep. Learned Tribunal exonerated the insurer of the vehicle from liability on the ground that the driver had no driving licence at the time of accident. Insurance of the vehicle during the relevant period is not disputed rather proved by Ex.8, the certificate of insurance. The appellant had produced a permanent partial disability certificate at Ex.44 which shows that 10% permanent partial disability was caused at the wrist of the appellant. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the said certificate on the ground that the same was obtained from a place where the appellant never got treatment of his injuries. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was treated mostly at Bewar and for some time at Ahmedabad. 6. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed a written statement before the Tribunal but they did not contest further, only the insurer had contested the claim case. 7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was treated mostly at Bewar and for some time at Ahmedabad. 6. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed a written statement before the Tribunal but they did not contest further, only the insurer had contested the claim case. 7. Only one witness, the complainant himself was examined before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimant and he deposed about the incident and the fact that at the time of accident, Kamal was driving the vehicle and he was negligent and careless in driving the vehicle which resulted in accident. The witness detailed about his monthly income and vocation he was following. There was no cross-examination on these points rather cross-examination is to the extent that the appellant was not maintaining any ledger of his income etc. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Shyam Mathur, an officer of the Insurance Company was examined. He simply deposed that the driver had no driving licence at the time of accident and Insurance Company is not liable as per the conditions of policy of insurance. 8. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Others, 2003 ACJ 1 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others, 2005 ACJ 721 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Basavva and Another, 2005 ACJ 724 9. The first point for consideration is whether it is a case of permanent disablement, if yes, the extent of disablement which prevented the appellant from following his trade of making ornaments or other vocations. The disablement certificate at Ex.44 reveals that the Chief Medical Officer at Sojat City had formed a Medical Board of three expert doctors. The Board noticed that there was malunion present at right wrist and dorsiflexion restricted. As such, there was 10% permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has wrongly disbelieved this document in absence of contrary evidence as it is not necessary that the Medical Board of experts should be constituted at the place of treatment itself. The Chief Medical Officer may decide to constitute the Board consisting of other expert doctors. Genuineness of Ex.4 has not been challenged. 10. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 the claim was for injuries. The Chief Medical Officer may decide to constitute the Board consisting of other expert doctors. Genuineness of Ex.4 has not been challenged. 10. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 the claim was for injuries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately laid down the guidelines for coming to a correct conclusion of just compensation: “12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary. (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement. (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%) the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” 11. In the case on hand, it appears that disablement is partially permanent disablement. It is also evident that the disablement has affected the ability of the appellant to make ornaments. However, the appellant could follow other vocations, therefore, appellant would be entitled for a reasonable amount for loss of his future earnings due to the accident. 12. The appellant claimed that he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. In absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income, the learned Tribunal took it to Rs. 1500/- per month. It is not disputed that appellant was a skilled self-employed. Therefore, claim of Rs. 300 per day earning cannot be termed as excessive and superfluous. In Jagdish vs. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 , the claimant was a carpenter and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal ousted the claim of income and accepted reduced income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the claim could not have been regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of accident. 6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal ousted the claim of income and accepted reduced income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the claim could not have been regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of accident. In absence of evidence to the contrary, the claim of income should not have been discarded by the Tribunal and the same is accepted as Rs. 9,000/- per month for the purpose of determination of compensation. It appears that the Tribunal has awarded other compensation in lower side. There is evidence on record that an X-ray etc. of the appellant was done at Ahmedabad. Therefore, under transportation head in stead of Rs. 1500/- just amount of Rs. 5000/- should have been awarded. Likewise, nothing was awarded for medical assistance during treatment for three months which should be 9,000/- @ 3,000/- per month for helper. Un-controverted evidence of the appellant is that he remained out of work for three months period of treatment, therefore, loss of income for three months was Rs. 27000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, for the loss of future earnings Rs. 2,00,000/- and for pains and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- would be just to be awarded to the appellant. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,180/- for medical expenses based on vouchers. The same is affirmed. The appellant would also be entitled for Rs. 20,000/- for nutrition diet for three months period of his treatment. 13. Therefore, payable compensation is calculated as 27,000/- for loss of earning of three months plus Rs. 5000/- for transportation plus Rs. 9,000/- for medical assistance plus 2 lacs for loss of earning plus 50,000/- for pains and sufferings, Rs. 2,180/- for medical expenses and Rs. 20,000/- for nutrition diet. The total amount comes to Rs. 3,13,180/- 14. The next point for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in exonerating the insurer from the liability without any proof by the insurer regarding absence of driving licence with the driver. The only material is Police Investigation Report that the Driver had no driving licence for the reason that the same was not produced to the police. Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires necessity of insurance against third party risk, the provision reads as follows: “146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk. The only material is Police Investigation Report that the Driver had no driving licence for the reason that the same was not produced to the police. Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires necessity of insurance against third party risk, the provision reads as follows: “146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk. (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter.” 15. Section 147 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus: “147 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” 16. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty on the insurer to satisfy the judgment and award of the person insured in respect of third party risk. Sub-Section (1) relevant for the purpose reads as follows: “149. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty on the insurer to satisfy the judgment and award of the person insured in respect of third party risk. Sub-Section (1) relevant for the purpose reads as follows: “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks: (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under Sub-Section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of section 163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.” 17. Taking note of the statutory provisions aforesaid, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rula and Others, 2000 (3) SCC 195 observed as follows: “7. The contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles has, therefore, to be construed in the light of the above provisions. Section 146(1) contains a prohibition on the use of the motor vehicles without an insurance policy having been taken in accordance with Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The manifest object of this provision is to ensure that third party, who suffers injuries due to the use of the motor vehicle, may be able to get damages from the owner of the vehicle and recoverability of the damages may not depend on the financial condition or solvency of the driver of the vehicle who had caused the Injuries. 8. 8. Thus, any contract of insurance under Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates a third party who is not a signatory or a party to the contract of insurance but is, nevertheless, protected by such contract. As pointed out by this Court in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pessumal Dhanama' Aswani, MANU/SC/0195/1964 : (1964) 7 SCR 867 , the rights of the third party to get indemnified can be exercised only against the insurer of the vehicle. It is thus clear that the third party is not concerned and does not come into the picture at all in the matter of payment of premium. Whether the premium has been paid or not is not the concern of the third party who is concerned with the fact that there was a policy issued in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident and it is on the basis of this policy that the claim can be maintained by the third party against the insurer.” 18. The status of the claimants in the case on hand is of a third party who is not a signatory under the contract of insurance but is protected by the contract of insurance statutorily. A third party cannot be expected to know the nature of contract between the insured and the insurer. A third party has only expectation that the provisions of the Act regarding mandatory insurance of the vehicle plying on the road must have been complied. 19. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded as follows: “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition, e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-Section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish ‘breach’ on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and Se award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and Se award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with Sub-Section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by Sub-Section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in Sub-Section (4) with proviso thereunder and Sub-Section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by, relegating them to the remedy before, regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 20. Evidently, the respondent insurer has not proved the breach of terms of policy to avoid its liability towards insured. Since the driver and owner had not contested the claim case, the insurer had all the defences available in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Evidently, the respondent insurer has not proved the breach of terms of policy to avoid its liability towards insured. Since the driver and owner had not contested the claim case, the insurer had all the defences available in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer could have brought on record tangible evidence obtained from the Department concerned that no driving licence was ever issued in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle. Merely for the reason that the driving licence was not produced to the police by the accused of the case, it cannot be termed that there was no driving licence. In fact, the insurer has failed to discharge its burden to prove the defence taken in the case. Even on assumption that there is breach of terms of policy, the insurer cannot avoid its liability to pay the third party and seek reimbursement from the party to the contract of insurance. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly held that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 21. All the aforesaid cases relied upon by the insurer/respondent were decided on quite different and peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases. In the case on hand, there is no evidence that the appellant was a gratuitous passenger on a commercial vehicle or otherwise. 22. In the result, it is directed that Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,13,180/ to the appellant within two months minus already paid amount alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of filling the claim petition, failing which, 8% interest would be payable till the date of realization. The contrary calculation of the Tribunal is set aside and this appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.