S.C. Sharma, J.

The present appeal (MA No. 1555/2010) has been preferred by the claimant being aggrieved by the Award dated 29/1/2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 10 2008 (Hakka s/o Narsingh v. Pappu and 2 others).

2. The other cases arising out of the same accident which took place on 11/11/2007, are also being disposed of by this common order.

3. The undisputed facts of the accident are that a motor vehicle (Jeep) carrying certain persons, bearing Registration No. MP10 A 1245 was going from Hat Bazar, at Jhabua to their respective place of residence and the Jeep met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the Driver. About 7 persons sitting in the Jeep sustained injuries and 7 claim cases were preferred by the injured persons. The claims Tribunal has passed 7 awards by passing a common order dated 29/1/2010 and in all 7 cases compensation has been granted for injuries suffered by the passengers. The award also reflects that there was a breach of the Insurance Policy and the statements recorded during trial also reflects that the Jeep was being used as a transport vehicle by the Driver and the Owner and therefore the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly stated before this Court that there was enough evidence to establish that the vehicle was being used as a Transport Vehicle, however, he has prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount and has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount and to recover the same from the Driver and Owner of the Vehicle, keeping in view the judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and others reported in 2004 ACJ 1(SC).

5. Learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company has vehemently argued before this Court that there was a breach of policy as the vehicle was being used as a Transport Vehicle though it was registered as a Private Vehicle for private use only. He has also argued before this Court that the question of directing the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount does not arise keeping in view the breach of the policy and the matter in respect of pay and recover has been referred to a Larger Bench and the same is pending before the Apex Court. He has also argued before this Court that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no case for enhancement is made out in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the vehicle was being used as a transport vehicle though it was registered as a private vehicle and there is certainly a breach of policy, as held by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award to the extent the Insurance Company has been exonerated, does not warrant any interference.

8. So far as the quantum of compensation which has been awarded to the claimant, is concerned, in the case of Hakka, (MA No. 1555/2010), he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 25000/- for a simple elbow fracture. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned award and is of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 25000/- has rightly been awarded keeping in view the various factors and based upon the finding of facts. The quantum of amount which has been awarded does not warrant any interference. In the case of Smt. Kali, (MA No. 1585/2010) a sum of Rs. 4,000/- has been awarded for a simple injury and therefore, the amount awarded in the case of Smt. Kali also does not warrant any interference. In the case of Tersingh, (MA NO. 1586/2010) Rs. 4,000/- has been awarded for a simple injury and therefore the same also does not warrant any interference. In the case of Jhumla, (MA No. 1583/2010) a sum of Rs. 7000/- has been awarded, again