Judgment :- 1. These two appeals arise out of the very same impugned judgment and award dated 08.11.2005 passed in MVC Nos.294/1999 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional Motor Accidents Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal’ for brevity). The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, awarded a sum of Rs.88,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. as against the claim made by the claimant for a sum of Rs.3,88,500/- , on account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The Insurance Company has contended that fastened liability on the insurer and awarding excessive compensation is not sustainable under law. Whereas, the claimant has contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced. In view of the same, both Insurance Company and the claimant have filed these two appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The claimant-respondent No.1 herein claims that he was aged about 28 years and was practicing Advocate at Shimoga Bar Counsel. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was earning income of Rs.2,000/- per month. That on 2.02.1999, when the claimant -1st respondent was proceeding towards Karagadi village from his house in Haniya in the motor cycle of his brother bearing No.MES.864 along with a pillion rider, one Raghavendra H.N., on the left side of the road in a normal speed following the traffic rules and regulations, near Karanagiri Temple culvert bridge, a Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing Registration No.KA/15/3608 ridden by 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner came in high speed from opposite direction completely on a wrong side i.e., to right side of the road. On account of which, he lost control over the vehicle while negotiating that bend of the road. In that process, the vehicle came and hit the claimant’s motor cycle touching the crash guard and due to this impact, the claimant was thrown out of his vehicle and fell on the left side of the road hitting against a road side guard stone due to which he suffered injuries, on his face and hand, also several bleeding injuries to the right eye region and he felt fainted with severe pain on the hit parts. Thereafter, he had been admitted to the hospital for a period of 7 days as an inpatient. Thereafter, he had been admitted to the hospital for a period of 7 days as an inpatient. Thereafter, he has taken treatment for a period of 7 to 8 months as an outpatient and also taken bed rest during the treatment period. He has examined Dr. Krishna Rao and Dr. Anil George as P.W.2 and P.W.3. As per the evidence of Dr. Anil George, after examining the claimant he found his conjuntival haemorrhage and there was a laceration of upper right eye lid and laceration of right side cheek 2 x 1 cm and tissue loss over chill, his right circum edema was swelling and he was found with depressed right molar prominence and there was tenderness of right infra and lateral orbital margin. On account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the claimant could not practice for a period of 7 to 8 months. Taking all these relevant aspects into consideration, the claimant was constrained to file a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988. The claim petition filed by the claimant came up for consideration before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal in turn after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on file allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.88,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company and the claimant both have filed these two appeals. 3. Sri P.B. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company contended that the liability fastened on the insurer on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle is liable to be set aside. According to the terms and conditions of the policy indicated in Exs.R1, R.2 and R.3 and evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2, it is clear that the vehicle was not covered with a valid insurance policy as on 2.2.1999. Therefore, he submitted that as on 2.2.1999, the policy was not in force. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to fastening liability on the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. 4. As against this, Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the claimant at the outset submits that the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company cannot be sustained under law. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to fastening liability on the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. 4. As against this, Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the claimant at the outset submits that the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company cannot be sustained under law. To substantiate his submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M.F.A.No.11677/2005 in the case of Sri Zameer Ahamed Vs. Sri B.R. Narayana Shetty disposed of on 30.09.2010, wherein this Court relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in M.F.A. No.6052/2003 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt. Bhadramma & Others and also in the case of Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd, Vs. Dharam Chand & Others reported in Civil Appeal no.5204/2003, wherein it is held that the Insurance must be deemed to have commenced from the time of the accident or four hours later when the vehicle met with the accident and the owner must be deemed to have been covered by the insurance policy, observed that the insurer cannot postpone the assumption of liability after receipt of premium. Therefore, he submits that there is no substance or force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. Further, he submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering and loss of income during laid up period is on the lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimant for considerable length of time. 6. After critical evaluation of the materials available on record and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the points that arise for our consideration in the instant appeals are: I. Whether the liability fastened on the Insurer is sustainable in law? II. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Re.Point No.1: The occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. II. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Re.Point No.1: The occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the owner of the vehicle has paid the premium on 1.2.1999 as per Ex.R.3, but, however, the Insurance Company has issued the policy as per Ex.R.2, wherein it is specifically stated that the policy would come into force from 2.2.1999 onwards. Once they have accepted the premium after examining the vehicle and issued the receipt, which they cannot be effective from 2.2.1999. The Insurance Company being a statutory authority carrying on the business of insurance is duty bound to honour & implement the provisions of law. As per Section 64 (v)(b), the insurer can assume the risk only upon receipt of premium. In respect of motor vehicle, there is no discretion on the part of the insurer & it has to issue policy, if proper premium is paid, and the insurance of policy becomes effective when premium is received. Therefore, the specific contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence and after going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and receipts at Exs.R.2 and R.3 has rightly come to the conclusion, by fixing liability on the Insurance Company. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. Re.Point No.2: The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly awarded R.30,000/- towards medical expenses as per medical bills produced by the claimant, R.10,000/- towards special diet, conveyance and incidental expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses and hence it does not call for interference. Further, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.3,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and comforts in life, which is on the lower side. Hence, it is required to be enhanced. The claimant had been admitted to hospital for a period of 7 days as an inpatient and undergone surgical treatment. The doctor has opined that he has taken treatment as an outpatient and also taken bed rest and follow up treatment. Hence, it is required to be enhanced. The claimant had been admitted to hospital for a period of 7 days as an inpatient and undergone surgical treatment. The doctor has opined that he has taken treatment as an outpatient and also taken bed rest and follow up treatment. Due to the injuries sustained particularly to the right eye, he has to undergo discomforts and unhappiness throughout his life and he cannot obtain the same eye vision as he had before the accident. Taking into consideration the period of treatment undergone by the claimant, we are of the considered view that the claimant has taken bed rest and taken follow up treatment for a period of 7 to 8 months. He was practicing Advocate at Shimoga Bar Counsel and was earning income of Rs.2,000/- per month and the same is accepted. Hence, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period, and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and comforts in life as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation: 1. Towards Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,000/- 2. Towards loss of amenities and comforts in life Rs. 25,000/- 3. Towards special diet, conveyance & incidental expenses Rs. 10,000/- 4. Towards medical expenses Rs. 30,000/- 5. Towards loss of income during the laid up period Rs. 16,000/- 6. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.1,21,000/- The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- as against Rs.88,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.33,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.3426/2006 is dismissed as devoid of merits and the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.2516/2006 is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 8.11.2005 passed in MVC No.294/1999 is hereby modified, awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.33,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 8.11.2005 passed in MVC No.294/1999 is hereby modified, awarding enhanced compensation of Rs.33,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within a period of two weeks from the date of judgment and award and the same shall be released in favour of the claimant immediately on deposit of the said sum by the appellant-Insurance Company. The amount in deposit in the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, shall be transmitted to the Jurisdictional Tribunal immediately. Office to draw the award, accordingly.