JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J.— Admit. 2. These two appeals by the Insurer and the claimant are arising out of the same judgment and award dated 20/12/2003 passed in MVC No. 754/2000 on the file of the Addl. Judge. Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT-V, Bangalore (SCCH-5), (hereinafter called as Tribunal for short). 3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,500/- with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit as against the claim made by the claimants for a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 4. In brief, the facts of the case are: The claimant was aged about 42 years at the time of accident, hale and healthy, working as coolie under One Sri. Selvaraj, owner of the offending vehicle. That on 2.5.1999 at about 5.00 p.m., claimant was travelling in a Tata Sumo bearing Reg. No. KA.01.Z.2345 on Mathur Uttanagiri road along with others and when they came near Jogipatty, Tamilnadu State, at that time, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and caused the accident. Due to which, the claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, he has been taken to Government Hospital and then shifted to St. Johns Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he has taken treatment as inpatient for four days and on account of the injuries sustained, he has suffered permanent disability and Doctor has assessed the disability at 40% to the face and at 20% to the whole body which is permanent in nature. Therefore, claimant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the driver, owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 1,03,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 1,03,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurer has presented M.F.A. No. 3633/2004 contending that fastening liability on it cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the claimant has filed M.F.A. No. 4162/2004 contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and it requires to be enhanced by modifying the impugned judgment and award. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Insurer and learned Counsel appearing for claimant. 6. The learned Counsel for the Insurer at the outset submitted that, the Tribunal has committed an error of law, much less material irregularity resulting in mis-carriage of justice in fastening the liability on the Insurer. Further, he submitted that the case of the claimant as per the claim petition is that, he was working as coolie under the owner of the offending vehicle and was one of the inmates of the car which was going from Bangalore to Tamilnadu along with other coolies and the said car met with an accident and he sustained injuries and therefore, insurance is not covered for the claimant under the Insurance Policy-Ex.R2. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court reported in Smt. Bhimavva and Others Vs. Shankar @ Adya and Others, AIR 2004 Kant 58 and submitted that an employee who is being carried in the vehicle is covered by the policy if such vehicle is a goods carriage and in the instant case, the vehicle is a Tata Sumo, a private car and not a goods carriage and therefore, the liability fastened on the Insurer is liable to be set aside. 7. As against this, learned Counsel for the claimant and the learned Counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle submitted that, the liability fastened on the Insurer by the Tribunal is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. 8. Further, learned Counsel for the claimant Sri. As against this, learned Counsel for the claimant and the learned Counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle submitted that, the liability fastened on the Insurer by the Tribunal is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act and therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. 8. Further, learned Counsel for the claimant Sri. T.C. Satishkumar submitted that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding reasonable compensation under all the heads on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified by enhancing compensation reasonably. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Insurer, the claimant and the owner of the vehicle at considerable length of time and after careful perusal of the materials available on file, the points that arise for our consideration are as under: (i) Whether the liability fastened on the Insurer by the Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Regarding Point No. 1: 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Insurer, it is crystal clear from the terms and conditions of the Ex.R2- Insurance Policy that, insurance risk is not covered in respect of coolies, if they travel in the private car owned by the owner. Further, it is clear from reading of Section 147 of the Act that the policy of insurance required to be taken in terms of Section 146 need not cover the liability in respect of the death or bodily injuries arising out of and also in the course of employment of every employee of the person insured under the policy. Such liability must however be covered in respect of three classes of employees of the insured, namely: (a) an employee engaged in driving the vehicle covered by the policy. (b) an employee engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or for examining the tickets on the vehicle. If the vehicle insured under the policy is a public service vehicle and (c) an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy if such vehicle is a goods carriage. 11. Further it is manifest from the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy that coolies are not covered under the insurance. If the vehicle insured under the policy is a public service vehicle and (c) an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy if such vehicle is a goods carriage. 11. Further it is manifest from the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy that coolies are not covered under the insurance. The vehicle belonging to the owner was being used for personal purposes. Therefore, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Section-147 read with Section 146 and Chapter 11 of the Act and the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in Bhimavva's case (supra), we are of the considered view that, the liability fastened on the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside holding that the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to satisfy the award in this case. Regarding point No. 2: 12. It is the case of the claimant that he was aged about 42 years, working as Coolie. The Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs. 2,000/- per month and the same is on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. Taking into consideration the age, occupation and the year of accident, we re-assess the income of the claimant at Rs.2,400/- per month. Further it emerges from the records that, claimant has taken treatment as inpatient for four days in the hospital and on account of the injuries he has sustained permanent disability, the Doctor has assessed the disability of the face at 40% and at 20% to the wholebody. The same is an exaggeration and 1/3rd of 40% would be the wholebody disability and it comes to 13.3% and it is rounded of to 14%. Accordingly, we take the disability at 14% to the wholebody instead of 7% as assessed by the Tribunal. This disability is permanent in nature and claimant has to suffer the same through out his life and it would affect his earning capacity. Further it is the case of the claimant that he has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges and we presume that, on account of the injuries, he might have taken bed rest and follow up treatment for six months and during the said period he might have sustained loss of income as he could not have attended his work. The appropriate multiplier applicable is 14' as he was aged about 42 years. But all these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Taking all these factors into consideration, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs.14,400/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment for six months, Rs.56,448/- (2,400/- x 12 x 14 x 14/100) towards loss of future income and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses. 13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-towards injury, pain and sufferings and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, discomforts and unhappiness, which is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. The total compensation payable comes to Rs.1,45,848/- and the break- up is as follows: Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 45,000/- Towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- Towards loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 14,400/- Towards loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000/- Towards loss of future income Rs. 56,448/- Total Rs. 1,45,848/- 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurer and the appeal filed by the claimant are allowed in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 754/2000 is hereby modified, setting aside the liability fastened on the Insurer and fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle and awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,848/- instead of Rs.1,03,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.42,348/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation. 16. The owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit the entire compensation with interest at 7% p.a. on the amount awarded by the Tribunal and with interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award. 17. The enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the claimant immediately, on deposit by the owner of the offending vehicle. 18. The apportionment ordered by the Tribunal remains undisturbed. 19. The statutory deposit made by the Insurer shall be refunded to the Insurer. 20. Office is directed to draw the award, accordingly.