JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. (1) In m. A. No. 1990/05 the award which is under challenge is dated 31st march, 2005 passed in claim case no. 195/04, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant vijay was allowed and on account of the injuries sustained by him a sum of rs. 7,500/ - has been awarded as compensation. The prayer in this appeal is for enhancement of compensation. In m. A. No. 1652/05 the award which is under challenge is dated 1st april, 2005 passed in claims case no. 197/2004 by additional member, mact, kukshi, district dhar, whereby in death case learned tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 2,74,000/ - as compensation. The prayer in m. A. No. 1652/05 is for enhancement. While m. A. No. 2311/05 has been filed by the respondent no. 3, wherein the prayer is that respondent no. 3 be exonerated. (2) Short facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by injured vijay singh and legal representatives of the deceased bhuru bhura singh alleging that on 19th april, 2004 deceased bhura singh and vijay were going in a truck bearing registration no. Mp. 09 - kb - 5672 which was driven by respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3, it was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, the offending truck was turtle down with the result that appellants who were travelling in the said truck in the capacity of labourers sustained injuries and ultimately bhura singh died. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent no. 3 on various grounds, including the ground that the offending truck was a goods vehicle, therefore, respondent no. 3 insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that respondent no. 3 be exonerated. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellants and awarded a sum of rs. 7,500/ - on account of the injuries sustained by appellant vijay and awarded a sum of rs. 2,74,000/ - on account of death of bhura singh. (3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in case of injury the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. 7,500/ - on account of the injuries sustained by appellant vijay and awarded a sum of rs. 2,74,000/ - on account of death of bhura singh. (3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in case of injury the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. Appellant vijay sustained fracture in skull bone and also the head injuries. He was hospitalized from 5th may, 2004 to 13th may, 2004. Appellant has spent a sum of rs. 1,340/ - towards medical expenses. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant who was a young man of 30 years the amount awarded is on lower side and the same deserved to be enhanced. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case of deceased bhura singh, learned tribunal has assessed the income @ rs. 2,000/ - per month and after deducting the 1/3rd amount towards his personal expenses, learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17. It is submitted that learned tribunal has awarded a sum of rs. 2,74,000/ - break - up of which is as under: rs. 2,72,000/ - towards loss of income rs. 2,000/ - towards funeral expenses. Rs. 2,74,000/ - total (5) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the accident is of the year 2004, the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed @ rs. 3,000/ - per month. (6) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, insurance company submits that learned tribunal committed error in holding respondent no. 3 insurance company liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that undisputedly the offending vehicle was goods carriage vehicle, therefore, learned tribunal committed error in holding respondent no. 3 insurance company liable for payment of compensation. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that the amount awarded is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made. (7) From perusal of the record it appears that in case of vijay, looking to the injuries sustained by him the amount awarded appears grossly inadequate, since it was found that there was a bony injury that too in the skull, therefore, some amount ought to have awarded towards injuries and on the heads also. Therefore, appellant vijay is entitled for the following amount: rs. 25,000/ - towards grievous injuries. Rs. 5,000/ - towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/ - towards special diet. Rs. Therefore, appellant vijay is entitled for the following amount: rs. 25,000/ - towards grievous injuries. Rs. 5,000/ - towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/ - towards special diet. Rs. 5,000/ - towards transport expenses. Rs. 5,000/ - towards expenses incurred on at tender's. Rs. 5,000/ - towards loss of income. Rs. 5,000/ - towards pain and sufferings. Rs. 55,000/ - total (8) So far as m. A. No. 1652/05 is concerned, in this case the income of the deceased has been assessed @ rs. 2,000/ - per month which ought to have been rs. 2,500/ - per month. Deceased was aged 23 years and was unmarried, while the parents who are appellants are of the age group of 40 to 45, therefore, multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied. The appellants are also entitled for compensation on account of loss of love and affections and loss of estate. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for the following amount: rs. 3,00,000/ - towards loss of dependency. Rs. 2,000/ - towards funeral expenses. Rs. 3,000/ - towards loss of estate. Rs. 10,000/ - towards love and affection. Rs. 3,15,000 total (9) So far as the liability of respondent no. 3 is concerned, to prove the accident is only vijay singh who was examined by the appellant. Since he was also the injured, therefore, vijay singh was the best witness of the incident. Respondent no. 1 did not turn up to explain that in what circumstances accident took place. Respondent no. 2 owner has been examined who has stated that vijay and bhura singh were travelling in the truck in the capacity of labourer. The evidence of the owner is further corroborated by vijay who has stated that he was travelling alongwith bhura singh in the capacity of labourer. No investigation has been made by respondent no. 3. From the evidence which has been adduced by respondent no. 3 to prove that extra - premium was taken by respondent no. 3 which covers the risk of two drivers, one cleaner and three labourers. Since deceased bhura singh and appellant vijay singh were two in number, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable for payment of compensation. (10) Thus the appellant vijay singh is held entitled for a total sum of rs. 55,000/ - instead of rs. 3 which covers the risk of two drivers, one cleaner and three labourers. Since deceased bhura singh and appellant vijay singh were two in number, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable for payment of compensation. (10) Thus the appellant vijay singh is held entitled for a total sum of rs. 55,000/ - instead of rs. 7,500/ - and appellants of m. A. No. 1652/05 are held entitled for a sum of rs. 3,15,000/ - instead of rs. 2,74,000/ -. The enhanced amount of rs. 47,500/ - in m. A. No. 1990/05 and the enhanced amount of rs. 41,000/ - of m. A. No. 1652/05 shall carry interest @ 7. 5% from the date of application. (11) The amount awarded in both the cases shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the nearest nationalized bank, in the area where the appellant (s) of both the case are residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance and interest on the said amount will be paid on monthly basis directly to the appellants. However, on an application by the appellants this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal and in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. (12) In the result m. A. Nos. 1990/05 and 1652/05 are allowed in part and m. A. No. 2311/05 filed by insurance company stands dismissed.