( 1. ) -THIS appeal and M. A. No. 771 of 2000 arise out of common award passed by the Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 44 of 1994; decided on 26. 8. 2000. M. A. No. 771 of 2000 is filed by the claimant Darshanlal arising out of the Claim Case No. 43 of 1994 for enhancement of compensation. As both these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are heard together and dis-posed of by this common judgment. ( 2. ) IN M. A. No. 768 of 2000, on the date of accident, i. e. , 27. 11. 1993 the claimant was working as cleaner on truck bearing no. MP 06-E 0024 and his salary was rs. 1,000 per month plus Rs. 30 daily diet allowance. On account of negligence of driver of truck bearing No. MP 06-E 0024, he sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital from 29. 11. 1993 to 30. 11. 1993 and again from 17. 12. 1993 to 10. 1. 1994. His right leg was amputated from knee (amputated stump at femur ). The claimant ramesh filed Claim Case No. 44 of 1994 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,70,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Shivpuri.

( 3. ) M. A. No. 771 of 2000 is filed by the claimant Darshanlal and he was travelling in truck No. MP 06-6887 and the truck was driven by Mewalal. Subhash Singh, respondent No. 1, who was driving the truck bearing No. MP 06-E 0024 and on account of rash and negligent driving, the appellant received severe injury on his right leg and, therefore, filed claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 vide Claim Case No. 43 of 1994 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000.

( 4. ) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 filed their separate written statements and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. The owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, in para 20 of his written statement stated that the respondent No. 1 was having driving licence to drive the truck and at the time of accident, the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 in its written statement admitted the accident, but denied that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 3 disputed the driving licence No. 11517 issued by the Licensing Authority, Kota in favour of respondent No. 1 and stated that no driving licence was issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 and at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was having a forged driving licence and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

( 5. ) CLAIMS Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has held that due to accident appellant Ramesh singh was seriously injured and his right leg was amputated and he suffered permanent disability. On the basis of the statement of NAW 1, the Tribunal has held that as per endorsement made by the Licensing authority, Kota on 2. 3. 2000, no driving licence was issued in favour of respondent no. 1 vide Exh. D1 and the said licence was issued by the licensing authority in the name of one Deepak K. Singh. Licensing authority issued a certificate to that effect vide Exh. D2 and held that the respondent no. 1 was not having any valid licence and the documents filed by the insurance company vide Exh. D1 and Exh. D2 are public documents under section 74 (1) (iii) of the evidence Act and had taken the said documents on record. The Tribunal relying on the statement of Babulal Agrawal, NAW 3 and the certificate, Exh. D2, filed by the licensing Authority, Kota has held that at the time of accident, the respondent No. 1 was not having valid driving licence to ply the vehicle and he was driving the vehicle contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy and exonerated the insurance company, respondent No. 3 from indemnifying the insured. The Tribunal considering the medical receipts filed by the appellant vide exh. P8 to Exh. P53, which is of Rs. 13,035 has held that appellant Ramesh Singh spent a sum of Rs. 13,100 on medical expenses. On the basis of the evidence of Ramesh singh,