The main legal point established is the determination of enhanced compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the insurance company for indemnification.

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 28.2.2003 passed by Ninth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 53 of 2000, for enhancement of compensation.

2. On 17.3.2000, appellant-claimant had been travelling in a jeep bearing No. MP 07-H 1798. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, it turned turtle. In the aforesaid accident appellant-claimant received serious injuries over his body. Report of the accident was lodged at Police Station, Panihar, District Gwalior. The appellant was admitted at J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior and thereafter, he was treated at various hospitals and a number of operations were performed on him. Thereafter, the appellant-claimant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 24,15,000. The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep No. MP 07-H 1798. It was insured at the relevant time by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3. The insurance company failed to prove that the driver of the jeep did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. After considering all the evidence on record the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,97,493 in favour of claimant.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has awarded less compensation and injury to the claimant has not been considered by the Claims Tribunal. In support of her contentions, the learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:

(1) Nandkishore v. Jagdish Chand 2009 ACJ 2156 (MP).

(2) Neha Bhadauriya v. Ehsan Khan M.A. No. 303 of 2006; decided on 24.2.2009.

(3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naushad 2001 ACJ 589 (MP).

(4) Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar 1998 ACJ 531 (SC).

(5) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brijlata 2009 ACJ 791 (MP).

(6) Netram v. Vijay Kumar 2006 (2) MPHT 94.

(7) Ganga Ram Patel v. Mohammad Zaheed Khan 2008 ACJ 2763 (MP).

(8) Sunita v. Murlidhar Mishra 2007 (3) MPHT 29.

(9) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tanuja M.A. No. 725 of 2000; decided on 23.8.2005.

(10) B. Imtiaz Ahamed v. G. Banumathi 2003 ACJ 142 (Madras).

4. Contrary to this, the learned Counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured, because the policy of the insurance was an Act Policy. He has further submitted that after considering the evidence on record of the case, proper compensation has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. There is no permanent disability to the claimant. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied on the following judgments:

(1) Dilkhush v. Bherulal 2006 ACJ 2341 (MP).

(2) Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2003 ACJ 1550 (SC).

(3) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC).

5. Learned Counsel for the insurance company has not disputed the fact that the vehicle was not insured at the relevant time, hence, the appeal has been decided with regard to quantum of compensation.

6. The claimant-appellant in his evidence deposed that at the time of accident, he was aged about 25 years and he had been doing the business of selling milk. He further deposed that on 17.3.2000 he had been sitting at Nehru Petrol Pump in a jeep bearing No. MP 07-H 1798 because the driver of the jeep was his friend, hence he had given him lift in the jeep and at the time of accident he was sitting in front side of the jeep. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, it turned turtle and he received serious injuries. There was fracture in his pelvic bone and his urethra was ruptured. He was admitted in J.A. Group of Hospitals on 17.3.2000 and discharged on 23.4.2000, after treatment he was not cured. Thereafter, he was admitted in Shrivastav Nursing Home at Doulat Ganj where an opera