Judgment :- Arali Nagaraj, J. Both M.F.A.Nos.667/05 & 668/05 and also MFA.CROB.No.199/05 have arisen from the same common judgment and respective awards dated 2.11.2004 passed in M.V.C.Nos.407 and 517 of 2003 by the learned District Judge & MACT, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal" for short). M.F.A.Nos.667 and 668 of 2005 are filed by the insurer and MFA.CROB.199/05 is filed by the claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 who is respondent in M.F.A.667/05. 2. We have heard the arguments of Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri Kishore Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent-cross-objector-claimant. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, strongly contended that both the injured claimants in the said cases were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the tempo bearing registration No.KL-11/H-1643 and therefore the Tribunal committed a serious error in fastening the liability on this insurer to pay the compensation to the claimants in the said cases. He further submitted that the compensation awarded in favour of the respective claimants in the said cases under different heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment, expenses towards treatment, etc. are highly excessive and therefore they deserve to be reduced. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent – cross-objector strongly contended that the claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 has become a living dead by reason of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident and, despite treatment as inpatient for four months, he is still bedridden and continues to be bedridden throughout his life and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal being quite inadequate, requires to be enhanced under each head. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the both parties the points that would arise for our consideration are: i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant – insurer of the said vehicle involved in the accident to pay compensation to the claimants in both the said cases? ii) Whether the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the cross-objector – claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 requires to be enhanced or reduced to any extent? ii) Whether the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the cross-objector – claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 requires to be enhanced or reduced to any extent? Our findings on these points are in favour of the cross-objector – claimant holding that: "the appellant – insurer is liable to pay compensation to both the injured claimants in M.V.C.Nos.407 and 517 of 2003 and, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 requires to be enhanced from Rs.11,26,100/-to Rs.15,46,100/-with interest thereon @ 6% per annum, for the following' REASONS 4. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant – insurer strongly contended that though it is the case of the claimants in both the said cases that the claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 namely Baiju was travelling from Calicut to Malpe, Udupi, in the said tempo as an agent of P.W.2 Siddique who was doing business in fish, for procuring fish on his behalf from Malpe and the claimant in the other case namely Abubakker Siddique was travelling in the said tempo as its cleaner-cum-loader, they have not produced on record any convincing evidence in support of their said case and therefore the Tribunal committed serious error in law in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer to pay compensation to them for the injuries sustained in the said accident. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent – cross-objector strongly contended that the evidence of P.W.1 Baiju in his examination-in-chief as to the fact that he was travelling in the said tempo as an agent of P.W.2 Siddque for procuring fish from Malpe, Udupi, has remained totally unchallenged and besides this, the said P.W.2 has also given his evidence to that effect, and therefore it cannot be said that P.W.1 was travelling in the said tempo as gratuitous passenger and as such the appellant, being the insurer of the said tempo is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants in both the said cases. 5. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 Baiju the injured claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 it could be seen that he has stated at para 4 therein that on the said date, time and place of accident he was travelling in the said tempo from Calicut to Malpe for procuring fish at Malpe as he was employed as an agent by P.W.2 Sidduque for that purpose. On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 made on behalf of the insurer it could be seen that this portion of the evidence in his examination-in-chief has remained totally unchallenged. Besides this P.W.2 Siddique has stated in his evidence that he was doing fish business at Calicut under the name and style of "C.S.Company" having its office at Calicut and that the said Baiju was his agent in his fish business and, on that day, he had hired the said tempo for transporting fish from Malpe port and therefore the said Baiju was travelling in the said tempo from Calicut to Malpe for the purpose of transporting fish from Malpe to Calicut. Though it is suggested to P.W.2 by the learned counsel for the insurer that the said Baiju had not hired the said tempo on his behalf and that he (Baiju) was not travelling in the said tempo for procuring fish at Malpe, these suggestions are specifically denied by P.W.2. 6. P.W.3 Abubakker Siddique who is claimant in M.V.C.No.517/03 has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the said date, time and place of accident he was travelling in the said tempo as cleaner-cum-loader from Calicut to Malpe for procuring fish. On careful reading of the evidence of P.W.3 in his cross-examination made on behalf of the insurer it could be seen that this portion of his evidence in examination-in-chief has remained totally unchallenged. Besides this no evidence whatsoever is brought on record by the insurer before the Tribunal to rebut the above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Therefore we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly believed the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 which clearly establishes the fact that the said tempo was hired by P.W.2 Siddique, who was doing business in fish at Calicut under the name and style of "C.S.Company" and that the injured P.W.1 Baiju being the agent of P.W.2 and also the injured Abubakker Siddique who was cleaner-cum-loader in the said tempo who were travelling in the said temp for the purpose of transporting the fish from Malpe to Calicut, which were to be purchased at Malpe. This being so, the Tribunal was quite justified in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer to pay compensation awarded in favour of both the said injured claimants. 7. This being so, the Tribunal was quite justified in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer to pay compensation awarded in favour of both the said injured claimants. 7. Further, on careful perusal of the contents of Ex.D1, insurance policy, it could be seen that the insurer has collected under it from the insured premium of Rs.200/-as "WC to employee 8" and Rs.75/- as "employees others" along with other sums under other heads. In view of the established fact that P.W.3 Abubakker the claimant in M.V.C.No.517/03 was travelling in the said tempo as cleaner-cum-loader, he comes under the category of employee under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the injured claimant Baiju who was travelling as an agent of P.W.2 comes under the category of the persons travelling in the goods vehicle along with the goods inasmuch as he had hired the said tempo on behalf of his said principal (P.W.2) for transportation of goods i.e., fish, from Malpe to Calicut and therefore he was taking the said tempo from Calicut to Malpe for the said purpose by travelling in it. 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the injured Abubakker Siddque was travelling in the said tempo at the relevant time of accident as cleaner-cum-loader under the employment of the owner of the said tempo and the injured Baiju was travelling in it as an agent of P.W.2 by hiring the said tempo for the purpose of transportation of fish, it could not be held that the said two injured claimants were travelling in the said tempo as gratuitous passengers as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer. This being so, the appellant – insurer, as rightly held by the Tribunal, is liable to pay the compensation awarded in favour of both the injured claimants in the said cases. 9. As to the quantum of compensation, referring to the evidence of P.W.4, the doctor who treated the injured claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 the learned counsel for the cross-objector – claimant strongly contended that in consequence of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, the claimant has become virtually a living dead having lost his sensation of both the lower limbs and has to depend on others for attending his day to day activities. The evidence of P.W.4, Dr.Shamsundar Bhat, is as under: "The claimant had fractured dislocation of P12 and L1 vertebrae with paraplegia. The evidence of P.W.4, Dr.Shamsundar Bhat, is as under: "The claimant had fractured dislocation of P12 and L1 vertebrae with paraplegia. He had posterior dislocation of hip joint of the right side also. 3rd injury was pneumothorax. He had heel pad avolus. Injury 1 to 3 were grievous in nature. He was admitted on the same day. On the same day claimant underwent debradement of heel pad wound, and closed reduction of right rib joint. He was maintained with a skeletal fraction to the right lower limb for 6 weeks. On 17.1.2003, he underwent stabilization surgery for this spine fracture dislocation. On 25.1.2003, secondary suturing of the heel wound was done." 10. On perusal of the above evidence of P.W.4, doctor, which has remained totally unchallenged, it could be seen that the claimant was treated as inpatient for more than four months, he has become 100% disabled to earn anything towards his livelihood by doing any job; on the other hand, he has to depend on others throughout his life for all his needs even for attending calls of the nature; the chances of his marriage are also completely ruled out. As to the assessment of compensation in respect of the injured claimants we have the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D.Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt.Ltd. and others reported in ( AIR 1995 SC 755 ). At para 9 of its judgment in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medial attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medial attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a verity of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 11. Further, in the case of Basavaraj vs. Shekar reported in (ILR 1987 KAR 1399) this Court has observed at para 8 of the said judgment as under: "If the original position cannot be restored – as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be – the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so make good the damage." In another judgment of this Court in the case of R. Venkatesh vs. P. Saravanan and others reported in ( 2002 ACJ 1743 ) it is observed at para 9 of the judgment as under: "As a result of amputation, the claimant had been rendered a cripple. He requires the help of crutches even for walking. He has become unfit for any kind of manual work. As he was earlier a loader doing manual work, the amputation of his left leg below knee, has rendered him unfit for any kind of manual work. He has no education. In such cases, it is well settled that the economic and functional disability will have to be treated as total, even though the physical disability is not 100 per cent." 12. A Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Narasimha Murthy vs. The Manager, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Bangalore and another reported in (ILR 2004 KAR 2471) observed at para 16 of the judgment as under: "The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justices, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision making. There should be realization on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possession and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries. Deprivation sustained as a consequence of bodily injuries may bring with it three consequences, namely, (1) loss of earning and earning capacity, (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself and (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures and joys of living. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Tribunals and Courts should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Loss of curing and earning should adequately be compensated. Therefore, while considering deprivation, the Tribunals and Courts should have due regard to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of deprivation. It is trite, in awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation awarded by the Court should be substantial, it should not be merely token damages." At para 29 in the same judgment the Bench has quoted the observations of Field, J. made in the case of Phillips vs. South Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406) which reads thus: "You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. (The plaintiff) can never suit again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation, once and for all. He has done no wrong; he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." 13. (The plaintiff) can never suit again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation, once and for all. He has done no wrong; he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." 13. All the above observations of this Court, other High Courts and the Supreme Court and also the English Court, in the decisions referred to supra, aptly apply to the facts of the present case. Having regard to the fact that the claimant in M.F.A.Crob.199/2005 in M.F.A.667/04 was treated as inpatient for more than four months and that he has to remain totally disabled to do anything, even to attend to his nature's calls, during his entire future life which may not be less than 40 years, and, he has to incur considerable expenses periodically towards his future treatment and attendants charges, we feel that the ends of justice would be met with if the amounts awarded under various heads by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment are enhanced as under: (i) Under the head pain and suffering from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. (ii) Under the head loss of enjoyment and amenities in future life from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. (iii) Towards expenses of future attendants' charges from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. 14. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses. On 10.8.2005 the learned counsel for the cross-objector – claimant has produced in this appeal several bills totally amounting to Rs.74,781/- to substantiate his case that the claimant has spent the said large amount towards purchase of medicine during the period from 24.11.2002 to 25.5.2005 subsequent to the passing of impugned judgment and award. We do not find any reason to suspect the genuineness of these bills. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case we hereby enhance the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards future medical expenses to Rs.1,00,000/- and award the same in favour of the cross-objector claimant. 15. P.W.4, doctor, has stated in his evidence that chances of marriage is totally ruled out unless a girl comes forward only to serve him without expecting marital pleasure. 15. P.W.4, doctor, has stated in his evidence that chances of marriage is totally ruled out unless a girl comes forward only to serve him without expecting marital pleasure. In this view of the matter we feel that the ends of justice would be met with if an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded in favour of this claimant towards loss of all the marriage prospects and we hereby award the same in his favour. 16. The sum of Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conveyance charges and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendants' expenses and other incidental charges during the period of treatment and also the sum of Rs.1,28,100/- awarded under the head expenses of medicines and treatment are left undisturbed inasmuch as, we do not find any reason to enhance the same to any extent. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company in both these appeals has not been able to substantiate his contention that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads in favour of the respective claimants is on the higher side. On the other hand the learned counsel for the cross-objector (claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03) has been able to convince us that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the said claimant is on lower side and it requires to be enhanced as aforesaid. Therefore, "we answer both the points raised for our determination in these appeals, in the 'affirmative' holding that the appellant-insurer is liable to pay compensation to both the injured – claimants in M.V.C.Nos.407/2003 and 517/2003 and, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 requires to be enhanced from Rs.11,26,100/- to Rs.15,46,100/- with interest thereon @ 6% p.a". and pass the following: ORDER Both these M.F.A.Nos.667 and 668 of 2005 filed by the insurer are hereby dismissed and M.F.A.Crob.No.199/05 filed in M.F.A.No.667/05 by the claimant in M.V.C.No.407/03 on the file of the learned District Judge and MACT, Udupi, is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs. The cross-objector – claimant shall be entitled to receive from the appellant – insurer a total compensation enhanced from Rs.11,26,100/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.15,46,100/- with interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum. The cross-objector – claimant shall be entitled to receive from the appellant – insurer a total compensation enhanced from Rs.11,26,100/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.15,46,100/- with interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum. The appellant-insurer, who is respondent in the cross-objection, shall deposit the said amount of compensation within four weeks from the date of drawing up of the modified award. The impugned judgment and award in so far as it relates to the depositing of amount of compensation into fixed deposit account in the name of claimant in any nationalized bank of his choice is left undisturbed. After the insurer deposits into the Tribunal the enhanced amount of compensation with interest thereon a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be released in favour of the claimant and the entire balance of enhanced amount of compensation shall be deposited in the name of the claimant with any nationalized bank of his choice initially for a period of 10 years which shall be renewed once in every 5 years throughout his life time. The banker shall be directed that the interest accrued on the said amount of deposit shall be paid to him periodically and the said amount of deposit or any part thereof shall not be permitted to be withdrawn nor any loan shall be raised thereon without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Tribunal. Award shall be modified in above terms.