JUDGMENT (Arun Kumar Goel, J.) We purpose to take up both these appeals together as they have arisen out of common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -I, Solan. 2. In F.A.O. No. 173 of 1992, Insurance Company is the appellant and claimant, driver and owner have been arrayed as respondents, whereas F.A.O. No. 180 of 1992 has been filed by Narinder Shanna, (hereinafter referred to as the claim ant), wherein ManmohairSihgh, (hereinafter referred to as the driver), Sonu Dcvinder Pal, (hereinafter referred to as the owner) and National Insurances Company, (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) have been arrayed as the respondents. 3. Brief facts giving rise to thus case are that the claimant filed M.A.C. Petitioner No.84-S/2 of 1989 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein compensation was claimed by him for having sustained leg injury in a motor vehicle accident which was being driven by the driver, belonged to the owner and was insured with the Insurance Company. As per averments made in the claim petition, the claimant was coming out of the public urinal located on the Mall, Solan near the office of Deputy Commissioner, Solan when he was hit by a Maruti Van which" was being driven by the driver and belonged to the owner. The accident was the resolt of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the Van, that too on the wrong side of the road. As a result of the impact of the accident, the claimant was thrown from the Mall Road on the Railway Station road which was below the Mall Road. Multiple injuries including fracture of his leg arc stated to have been sustained by the claimant. In order to get himself treated, the claimant remained under treatment in Civil Hospital, SoJan, C.M.C. Ludhiana, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh. The extent of permanent dis-ability sustained by the claimant is a result of this accident was certified to be 45% which was the result of compound fracture of his left leg. 4. Further case set-up by the claimant was that he is a young man of 38 years and was employed as Deputy Manager with M/s Shiwalik Bio-Metals, Chambaghat at monthly remuneration of Rs.2,500/- besides other benefits. Before accident, he had given up his job and had decided to establish small industrial unit of plastic. 4. Further case set-up by the claimant was that he is a young man of 38 years and was employed as Deputy Manager with M/s Shiwalik Bio-Metals, Chambaghat at monthly remuneration of Rs.2,500/- besides other benefits. Before accident, he had given up his job and had decided to establish small industrial unit of plastic. In order to accomplish his said plastic industry project, the claimant had raised loan from the bank. Due to accident in question, the claimant was confined to bed for more than 1-1/2 years. This resulted in his being unable to establish his industrial unit besides interest burden having mounted on him as also rent of premises kept on increasing without any productive use to him. Monthly projected income after establishing his industrial unit was claimed to be Rs.4,000/- to 3,000/-. The claimant further pleaded that he spent about Rs.25,000/- on his treated and likelihood of incurring Rs.45,000/- towards such treatment was also there because he was still undergoing treatement when he filed the claim petition. On the scraverments, compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed. .. 5. The driver and owner while admitting the accident in question denied that it was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver. A child having come on the left side of the vehicle while negotiating the Van and its steering having got locked resulted in vehicle hitting the claimant who was coming out from the side of the urinal. The claimants having sustained injuries was also admitted as a result of the accident. The Insurance Company also resisted the petition on the plea that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and the petitioner being bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties viz., owner of t he vehicle Devinder.Pal was also pleaded and lastly it was stated by the Insurance Company that its liability is limited. 6. On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as a result of accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No .l, an employee of respondent No.2 7 O.P.P. 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled ? O.P.Parties 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties ? Q.P.R. 4. Relief. 7. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as a result of accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No .l, an employee of respondent No.2 7 O.P.P. 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled ? O.P.Parties 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties ? Q.P.R. 4. Relief. 7. By means of impugned award, a sum of Rs.76,400/- Has been held payable by the respondents jointly and severally to the claimant as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 23.11.1991 in case amount is deposited within 30 days, failing which interest has been ordered to be payable at the rate of 12% per annum from the said date. 8. It is this award which has been questioned by the claimant as well as Insurance Company in two appeals, as detailed hereinabove. 9. So far the appeal filed by Insurance Company (F.A.O. No. 173 of 1992) is concerned, the sole ground raised by Shri L.C. Kapoor, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, is that its liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, could not have been extended beyond Rs. 50,000/- and to that extent, it was urged that the award needs to be modified thereby reducing the liability to this amount only. 10. In the appeal filed by the claimant (F.A.O. No. 180 of 1992), Shri G.D.Venna, Advocate, learned counsel for the claimant, has urged that compensation awarded is wholly inadequate looking to the nature of injuries sustained, extent of permanent disability which was the direct result of the accident in question and the time during which the appellant remained under treatment-which was continuing on the date of filing of the claim petition. Shri G.D.Verma, Advocate, further urged that under different heads, viz., pain sufferings, loss of earning, medical expenses, loss of future earning, amount of rent paid by-him as well as interest which became payable on the loan raised by his client have not been properly assessed much less awarded and thus," he has urged for enhancement of compensation. 11. We first "of all propose to examine the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. In this behalf, when reference is made to the Insurance Policy (Ex.RW-1/A), it is clear that the premium charged by it was in respect of the liability to public risk i.e. Rs.120/- only. 11. We first "of all propose to examine the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. In this behalf, when reference is made to the Insurance Policy (Ex.RW-1/A), it is clear that the premium charged by it was in respect of the liability to public risk i.e. Rs.120/- only. Under the heading limits of liability, the extent of Companys liability has been fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. A perusal off this Ex.RW-1/A shows that no extra premium has been charged by the Insurance Company for contracting out and taking the entire liability in addition to public risk in respect of the accident in question. The extent of risk covered vis-a-vis the premium of Rs.120/-. Charged has been verified by Us frith reference to Tarif Manual, that was in force on the. date of accident, lanthis behalf, reference needs to be made to Section 95(2)(b)(i). Admittedly, so far the respondent is concerned, he was not a passenger carried for hire or reward in the taxi in question. In fact, he was a person other than passengers carried for hire or reward in the Van in question at the time of accident, thus he was third party. The limit of liability in such, case- was Rs.50,000/- in all That being so, mis remains the position under Section -II of the Insurance Policy which deals that liability to third party. Admittedly, the claimant is the third party in the instant case. 12. On the other hand, S/Shri Sharwan Dogra and R.K.Gautam, Advocates appearing for driver and owner of the Van in question, vehemently urged that findings recorded by the Tribunal below holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of the .entire amount of compensation deserve to be upheld, in addition to this, it was further urged that in the event of any relief being given to the claimant in his appeal F.A.O. No. 180 of 1992, the liability for the same would also be that of the Insurance Company. 13. In this behalf, it was urged that so far the premium of Rs.120/-is concerned, it does not restrict the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.50,000/- but makes it unlimited and thus, it was reiterated by them that the award of the Tribunal below calls for no interference. 13. In this behalf, it was urged that so far the premium of Rs.120/-is concerned, it does not restrict the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.50,000/- but makes it unlimited and thus, it was reiterated by them that the award of the Tribunal below calls for no interference. So far the matter relating to liability of the Insurance Company being limited upto Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the fact remains that the same had been restricted in terms of Rs. RW-l/A as well as in view of the premium charged by it in the sum of Rs.12 0/-. After giving our thoughtful consideration as well as after having examined the provisions of Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, we are of the view that the liability of the Insurance Company in the present case is limited to Rs. 50,000/- and it is held accordingly and to this extent the appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed. 14. Now coming to the question whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below was liable to be enhanced or not in the appeal filed by the claimant. There is positive evidence that the claimant had been undergoing treatment at different places from time to time. Award of total sum of Rs. 76,400/- appears to be on lesser side. Keeping in view the age and nature of injuries sustained by him for which the claimant remained under treatment, it is felt that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- needs top be awarded to the claimant for pains and sufferings. It is also not in dispute that the appellant - claimant remained under treatment for about 1-1/2 years, that too, at different hospitals, viz., Civil Hospital, Solan, CMC. Ludhiana, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh. This court cannot lose site of the fact that substantial expense must have been incurred by the claimant. He has placed on record few of the bills of medicines which are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-40. While a person is undergoing treatment, it would not be expected that he would keep day to day as well as penny to penny account of expenditure incurred by him. Keeping in view the cost of medicines as well as other expenditures involved in going from hospital to hospital that too at different places, it is felt that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- needs to be awarded to the claimant. Keeping in view the cost of medicines as well as other expenditures involved in going from hospital to hospital that too at different places, it is felt that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- needs to be awarded to the claimant. Besides this, the earning capacity of the claimant had definitely been affected inasmuch as that implementation of this project got delayed because of his having sustained injuries and the long period of treatment which he had to undergo. In these circumstances, taking loss of income at conservative sum of Rs. 2.000/- per mensum for 1-1/2 years loss of income at Rs. 36,000/- is assessed to be then reasonable amount to which the claimant is entitled to. So far the claim made regarding payment of rent as well as levy of interest is concerned, suffice it to say that there is no evidence regarding the first item. So far as the matter relating to payment of interest is concerned, no doubt, there is statement of PW-3 but still the fact remains that the petitioner at the most would be entitled to interest that was paid by him during the period lie could not put the loan raised by him to productive use being under treatment as a direct result of the accident in question. In the present case there is no such evidence as such the claim made under both these heads is hereby turned down. 15. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the petitioner -claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,16.000/- instead of Rs.76,400/- as awarded by the Tribunal below. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal below stands modified. In addition to this sum of Rs.1,16,000/-, the claimant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% P.A. w.e.f. 8.6.1989 i.e. the date of filing the petition till the date of its payment. Any amount deposited /paid, would be liable to be adjusted. Since we have taken the view that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.50,000/- , it is held that the Insurance Company would pay this amount together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 8.6.1989 till the date of payment and the balance sum of Rs.66,000/- with 12% P.A. interest from the aforesaid date would be payable jointly and severally by the driver and owner of the vehicle in question. Both the appeals are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and the awardof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan is modified accordingly. Costs on the parties.