ORDER : Since, both the appeals are arising out of the same award dated 31.01.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 03/2016 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, CG, they are being heard and decided by this common order. Parties are referred to their status before the learned Tribunal. 2. MAC No. 281 of 2017 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in his favour by the learned Tribunal. 3. MAC No. 1056 of 2017 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the liability fastened upon it to pay the compensation. 4. Facts of the case in brief is that the claimant who happens to be aged about 54 years met with an accident by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (school bus) bearing registration No. CG 19 F 0171 driven by the driver – Nidhish P.R., owned by the Life Academy School Pakhanjore and insured with the insurance company. 5. Further pleading of the claim application reflects that the claimant suffered 40 % permanent disability and he spent huge amount on his treatment, he remained in hospital for a considerable period of time and total compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- under various heads was claimed by him. 6. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the offending vehicle is registered as a transport vehicle and it is insured with the National Insurance Company and according to the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The driver is holding valid and effective driving license and hence, they may be exonerated from payment of compensation. 7. The insurance company also filed its written statement and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. The offending vehicle was being driven without any valid permit and fitness which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no disability caused to the claimant and the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle driven by the claimant has not been arrayed as respondents. Hence, on account of non - joinder of necessary parties, application may be rejected. There is no disability caused to the claimant and the owner and the insurance company of the motorcycle driven by the claimant has not been arrayed as respondents. Hence, on account of non - joinder of necessary parties, application may be rejected. The claimant himself was negligent in causing the accident and there is head on collision between the scooty (motorcycle) and the offending vehicle, hence, principle of contributory negligence would be applicable. In view of the above, the insurance company prayed that it may be exonerated from payment of compensation. 8. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed six issues and decided the same in favour of the claimant, against the insurance company and awarded Rs. 1,37,480/- as compensation. The issue No. 3 was with regard to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which was decided as not proved. 9. Learned counsels for the claimant argued that the income of the deceased is taken to Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on the lower side. The disability to the tune of 40 % was proved by disability certificate of the medical board (Ex. P-24) and the learned Tribunal committed an error in assessing the functional disability to the tune of 13 %. Apart from this, they submit that the compensation awarded on all other heads is also on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement. 10. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference. He further submits that the offending vehicle was driven without any valid permit and fitness. There is a breach on the part of the insured. He further submits that the insurance company has examined the witness from the RTO who has categorically proved that there was no permit of the offending vehicle which is also duly corroborated with the statement of the witness of the insurance company. Apart from this, he submits that the driver and owner contested the case till the end and they did not file any copy of the permit on record enabling the insurance company to verify the same. However, even otherwise, from the statement of witness of the RTO, it is proved by cogent evidence that there was no permit of the offending vehicle. However, even otherwise, from the statement of witness of the RTO, it is proved by cogent evidence that there was no permit of the offending vehicle. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others reported in (2018) ACJ 1768 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 , to contend that the finding with regard to fastening the liability upon the insurance company is bad in law, which requires to be set aside. 11. This Court would first deal what is the just compensation to be awarded to the claimant. 12. The age of the claimant was found to be 54 years and his monthly income was assessed to Rs. 3,000/- per month. In the opinion of the Court, looking to the age, nature of job, date of accident, Rs. 3,000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. 13. Considering the entire evidence available on record, this Court assess the monthly income of the claimant to Rs. 5,000/-. Since the claimant was aged about 54 years, 10 % future prospect is required to be added in his monthly income. The learned Tribunal has assessed functional disability of the claimant to 13 %. From the evidence of the claimant as well as Dr. Vijay Shukla (AW-2) who has stated that he would face difficulty in performing work of daily routine there is some movement restrictions and his muscles of the thighs are weaken and he would difficulty in sitting. Therefore, this Court assess the functional disability to the tune of 20%. 14. Accordingly, this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 5,000/- 2. 10% Future prospect (5000+500) 5500/- 3. Functional disability and loss of earning capacity (5500 x 20%) 1100/- 4. Yearly loss of Income (1100X12) 13,200/- 5. Applying Multiplier of 11 (13200x11) 1,45,200/- 6. Loss of income during treatment 10,000/- 7. Physical and Mental Pain 15,000/- 8. For nutritional diet, for assistant and for traveling 15,000/- For treatment 60,000/- Total compensation 2,45,200/- 15. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,37,480/- which is deducted total compensation now assessed and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,07,720/-. Applying Multiplier of 11 (13200x11) 1,45,200/- 6. Loss of income during treatment 10,000/- 7. Physical and Mental Pain 15,000/- 8. For nutritional diet, for assistant and for traveling 15,000/- For treatment 60,000/- Total compensation 2,45,200/- 15. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,37,480/- which is deducted total compensation now assessed and the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 1,07,720/-. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, interest @ 6 % is also awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of memo of appeal to be deposited within a period of 60 days. 16. It takes me to the question as to whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company has taken a specific plea that the offending vehicle was being driven without valid permit and fitness. To prove its plea the insurance company has examined witness No. 1 (Kalaram Mandavi) who is working as a Assistant Grade-II in District Transport Office, Kanker. He has very categorically stated that he is working in the District Transport Office, Kanker as Assistant Grade-II from July 2008 and deals in matter related with driving license and permit. He has also stated that from his office, no permit was issued to the vehicle bearing registration CG 19 F 0171 and he further stated that the permit of the school bus is issued from the Regional Transport Office, Jagdalpur, CG. Another witness No. 3 namely Vijay Kumar Ber was also examined by the insurance company and he has stated that he is posted in the permit branch of Regional Transport Office Jagdalpur since 2013 and according to the records of the office, permit for offending vehicle CG 19 F 0171 was not issued. The driver and owner did not cross-examine this witness. Witness No. 2 Ramchandra Verma – Development Officer of the appellant / insurance company was examined and he has proved that the offending vehicle was insured with insurance company and according to the conditions mentioned between A to A, as there was no permit, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. He was not cross examined either by the driver and owner or by the claimant. 17. The learned Tribunal relied upon the seizure memo (Ex. P-3) in which it appears that proforma B of permit of the offending vehicle was said to have been seized. He was not cross examined either by the driver and owner or by the claimant. 17. The learned Tribunal relied upon the seizure memo (Ex. P-3) in which it appears that proforma B of permit of the offending vehicle was said to have been seized. From the record it does not appear they filed any copy of the permit on record and records also reflect that a notice to produce document was also filed to produce the permit and driving license. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) in Paragraph 23, it is observed and held as under: “23. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” 19. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others (supra) it is observed and held in para-graph 12 as under: “12. High Court was of the view that since there was no permit, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. The view is clearly fallacious. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of insurer. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable.” 20. In light of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the insurance company is allowed and the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed. 21. Since this Court while admitting the appeal, the insurance company was directed to deposit the entire amount awarded with interest therefore, considering the facts and benevolent legislation of MV Act, the enhanced amount shall be paid by the insurance company within 60 days and may recover it from the driver & owner of the offending vehicle. No cost.