JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act) for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 66 of 1991 by a common award dated 7.4.1995 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa. 2. The appellant was travelling as a labourer of the forest contractor for the security of the wood transported in truck No. MBI 28 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. The truck was not in control. It struck the telephone pole and turned turtle as a result of which the appellant and other labourers received injuries. The appellant suffered the fractures of his left wrist, radius bone and injuries on other parts of the body. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Khandwa. He remained there as indoor patient for eight days where his left hand was plastered which remained for 40 days. The appellant stated that because of the fracture in the left radius and wrist, he could not now do heavy work as a labourer and has become unfit. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000 towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,250 for loss of earning and Rs. 1,000 for pain and suffering for a period of 3 months. In all, the amount of Rs. 4,250 was awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment which was ordered to be paid by the owner and driver of the truck jointly or severally. The respondent No. 3 insurer of the truck was exonerated from payment of compensation as the appellant and other labourers were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the truck, in breach of the conditions of the policy. 3. After notice of appeal, owner has filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 wherein it is contended that finding recorded by the Tribunal to exonerate the respondent No. 3 is illegal. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the record, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. Looking to the nature of injury which the appellant had suffered resulting in his permanent disablement and looking to the job which the appellant was performing, the appellant has certainly suffered. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the record, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. Looking to the nature of injury which the appellant had suffered resulting in his permanent disablement and looking to the job which the appellant was performing, the appellant has certainly suffered. In the head of pecuniary damages, that is, expenses incurred in treatment and loss of earning the award of the Tribunal is fair. However, under the head of non-pecuniary damages, the award deserves to be enhanced. In the head of pain and suffering, mental and physical shock which the appellant suffered till he remained under treatment and which the appellant is likely to suffer an amount of Rs. 3,000 would be fair instead of Rs. 1,000 as awarded by the Tribunal. For permanent disability due to injury, that is, he would not be able to work as he was working prior to accident his functional capacity has been reduced, he will suffer inconvenience, hardship and discomfort, therefore, taking into account comparable cases an amount of Rs. 15,000 would be just. Thus, in all the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 21,250 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. 5. Now, coming to the liability of the insurer, from the evidence it is clear on record that the appellant was travelling in the truck as a labourer of the forest contractor for security of the goods, that is, cut wood. Therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru 1987 ACJ 1 (MP), the insurer would be liable. Even assuming that the appellant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 ( ), carrying of 2-3 passengers would not amount to a fundamental breach so as to absolve the insurance company from its liability of compensation as the accident was not caused because of the appellant. 6. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 ( ), carrying of 2-3 passengers would not amount to a fundamental breach so as to absolve the insurance company from its liability of compensation as the accident was not caused because of the appellant. 6. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount as awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, i.e., 12.11.1991, within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy, which on deposit shall be disbursed by the Tribunal to the appellant keeping in mind the guidelines for disbursement of compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs, the award of the Tribunal shall stand substituted as indicated herein above. Counsel's fee Rs. 750, if pre-certified. Cc. as per rules.