Ramachandran Nair, J.

Both these appeals arise from the award in O.P.No.379/2008 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. M.A.C.A.No.689/2010 is filed by the claimant represented by his wife as next friend aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation. M.A.C.A.No.2137/2010 is filed by the Insurance Company, which was the fourth respondent before the Tribunal. We will refer to the parties as arrayed before the Tribunal.

2. First we will come to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

3. We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned counsel for the claimant Sri.Thomas M.Jacob and the learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Ravi Sanker P.K. and Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathapzha, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Kerala Agricultural University (the owner of the vehicle). In the connected appeal M.A.C.A.No.689/2010, we also heard Sri.A.C.Devi, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

4. Before going to the respective contentions, we will refer to the facts leading to the passing of the award. The accident occurred on 17.12.2007 at about 12.30 p.m. at a junction on Pala - Ettumanoor Highway. The injured /claimant was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No. KL-35-5149, which was hit by a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-8- A-9926 driven by the first respondent before the Tribunal. The claimant was immediately removed to a nearby hospital, namely, Marian Medical Centre, Pala. On the next day, he was taken to the Matha Hosptial, Thellakom. He was later treated in the Medical Trust Hospital. He was aged 34 at the time of the accident and was a qualified welder. A total amount of Rs.30 lakhs was claimed. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has become totally incapacitated and the disability assessed by the Medical Board is 97%. He has also lost his power of speech. We will come to the various details while considering his claim for enhancement.

5. In M.A.C.A.No.2137/2010, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company mainly contended that the policy has become void which is one of the defences available to the Insurance Company under Section 149 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the offending vehicle was registered as Omni bus and in 2007 it was altered as Educational Institution Bus. The renewal of the policy was obtained for the period in question namely on 21.11.2007 without disclosing of the material fact concerning alteration of class. The classification of the vehicle having been changed as educational institution bus, the policy which was renewed as a private service vehicle really became void. The tariff rate applicable to the commercial vehicles had to be collected and there is appreciable difference in the premium and therefore non-disclosure of the material fact makes the policy void and the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award.

6. It is submitted that the policy issued for the period in question is valid from 21.11.2007 to 20.11.2008. Initially the policy was taken for a private car and the conversion made was from 10.04.2007. Evidence was given by examination of RWs 1 and 2 and Exts.B1 to B9 have been marked. It is submitted that as the vehicle is a transport vehicle and is used for transporting staff and students, it can be considered only as a commercial vehicle, for which the premium is on a higher rate than that of a private service vehicle. In that context, the learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to definition of Transport Vehicle and the decision reported in Julian v. Peethambaran (1997 (2) KLT 763) and in M.A.C.A.No.979/2005. Section 4 of the Indian Motor Tariff as applicable to commercial vehicles will apply to the vehicle in question, but the premium paid is under Section 2. Ext.B1 produced is the certificate of regi