1. In this appeal which has been filed against the judgment and award dated 19.7.2003 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, challenge has been made to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal as against exonerating the insurance company from its liability and for enhancement.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents. Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana with the averments that the respondent No. 1 (since deceased) was the driver of jeep bearing No. RJ 23-0391 and in that jeep claimant was also travelling. But on account of rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver on 30.5.1997, the jeep turned turtle as a result of which the claimant sustained several injuries on his person. In all total claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed by the claimant before the learned Tribunal. The driver and the owner of the jeep filed written statement and denied that jeep was being driven on the day of incident in a rash and negligent manner. Respondent No. 3 insurance company raised several objections. An objection was also raised that the driver was not having valid licence. The Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. During the course of trial deceased driver died. Therefore, his name was deleted. His legal heirs have not been brought on record. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides awarded in all compensation of Rs. 1,21,025/- along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum vide its judgment dated 19.7.2003. Hence this appeal.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation, which needs to be enhanced. It is also submitted that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwani, 2004 RAR 69 , proposition of law is clear that even learner's licence is a valid licence. According to the learned counsel in the above circumstances, exoneration from the liability to pay compensation of the insurance company is not a sustainable finding. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the award is a reasoned one which needs no interference. As regards liability of the insurance company in view of the above referred decision could not be denied.

4. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned judgment/award and also material available on record.

5. The points for consideration are as under :

(i) Whether the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation?

(ii) Whether the insurance company is also liable to pay compensation jointly and severally with the owner respondent No. 2?
The point Nos. (i) and (ii) are being decided together. The accident in this case has not been disputed and no appeal has been filed by the insurance company. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the appellant sustained injuries on his person on account of rash and negligent driving on part of the driver since deceased. A bare perusal of issue No. 3 which was framed in relation to quantum of compensation reveals that the learned Tribunal has considered the matter in relation to awarding of compensation with reasons. The learned Tribunal's finding that no satisfactory evidence in relation to income was adduced then considered the income of the injured at the rate of Rs. 60/- per day. The Tribunal considering the permanent disability of the claimant appellant awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and on other heads, i.e., for the medical expenses and loss of income during treatment and other means in all compensation of Rs. 1,21,025/- has been awarded. The Tribunal considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence and it does not appear that the Tribunal has passed award of compensation at the lower side.

6. It is now to be seen whether exoneration of insurance company from its liability by the Tribunal is a finding