JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent of counsel for both sides, all the four appeals are taken up together inasmuch as the appeals arise out of a common Judgment passed by the Court below and that the claimants have sustained injuries in one and the same accident that took place on 14.01.2011. 2. The Insurance Company has come forward with these appeals questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below in favour of the claimants, who have sustained injuries in an accident while they were travelling in a rig. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that more than 10 persons were travelling in the rig at the time of accident and therefore, there was a breach of the policy. Furthermore, originally, the claimants have pleaded that they were travelling in the vehicle as helpers and subsequently, they have filed a petition for amendment as if they were waiting for the vehicle on the road and they were not travelling in the lorry and at that time, the lorry overturned and they sustained injury. Under those circumstances, the insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability to pay the compensation. 4. As far as quantum is concerned, the Insurance-Company has not raised any serious dispute. The learned counsel for the appellant would only contends that the liability will not arise as per the policy conditions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that though in the original application, the claimants stated that they were travelling in the rig as helpers, subsequently, an amendment application was filed stating that when they were waiting for the vehicle on the road, the rig came into contact and dashed against them. The said amendment application was allowed and thereafter, the Insurance Company did not prefer any appeal against the order allowing amendment application or they have not filed any additional counter. Therefore, it is not open for the appellants to agitate it in this appeal before this Court. Even as regards the policy conditions are concerned, the claimants produced the copy of the policy and there was no restriction as regards the claim for number of persons. Moreover, the policy covers the claimants who have sustained injuries at the time when they were standing in the road. 6. Even as regards the policy conditions are concerned, the claimants produced the copy of the policy and there was no restriction as regards the claim for number of persons. Moreover, the policy covers the claimants who have sustained injuries at the time when they were standing in the road. 6. As far as quantum is concerned, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the quantum awarded by the court below is very meagre and it is befitting to the injuries sustained by the claimants. As far as the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 893 of 2001 is concerned, the claimant was hospitalised for more than four months and the permanent disability was assessed at 75%. Inspite of the same, the court below awarded a very meager amount of Rs.2,25,000/- even though the claimant produced Medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,24,165/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents herein would only pray that the appeals may be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The point for consideration in all these appeals are (i) Whether the claimants/respondents are third parties travelling in the vehicle as helpers? and (ii) Whether the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation? 8. The insurance company admits the date and time of accident. The version of the claimants was that when they were standing in the road, the tyre of the lorry burst with the result, the lorry dashed against them when they were stationery. Though, originally the claimants claimed that they were travelling in the lorry, as helpers, subsequently, an application for amendment was filed in which they have taken a plea that they have sustained injuries when they were standing in the road. The application was allowed by the trial court and the version of the claimants originally made in the Original Petition was ordered to be amended. But, unfortunately, the Insurance-Company has not taken up the matter by way of appeal. The insurance company has not even filed a counter before the Court below opposing the amendment. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not open for the appellant Insurance-Company, at this point of time, to agitate the stand taken by the claimants before the court below in the petition for amendment. Therefore, the first ground of objection made by the appellant-Insurance company is not sustainable. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not open for the appellant Insurance-Company, at this point of time, to agitate the stand taken by the claimants before the court below in the petition for amendment. Therefore, the first ground of objection made by the appellant-Insurance company is not sustainable. From the amendment and from the evidence, it is now made very clear that the claimants are only by-standers. Therefore, as far as the claimants are concerned, they become third parties. When once the claimants are held to be third parties, the Insurance-Company is liable to pay compensation. 9. The next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is in regard to the liability of the Insurance-Company to pay compensation on the ground that the vehicle is insured only for three employees. But, this point will not arise in this case, especially after the amendment application filed by the claimants before the court below was allowed and in view of the findings rendered above that the claimants are only third parties. It is also further made clear that the Insurance-Company has not let in any contra evidence to disprove the theory of third party projected by the claimants. When there is no evidence forthcoming from the Insurance-Company, it has to be necessarily held that the claimants are only third parties and therefore, the Insurance-Company would be liable to pay the compensation. 10. As far as the quantum is concerned, it is admitted case that all the four claimants have sustained multiple fractures, especially in the first case, viz., C.M.A.No.2160 of 2007 as against the M.C.O.P.No.893 of 2001, the injured had sustained multiple fractures, he has been hospitalised from 14.01.2001 to 14.05.2001 and the doctor has certified 75% disability. The claimant has produced medical bills worth about Rs.2,24,165/-. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the injured at Rs.750/- and determined the annual income at Rs.9,000/-. Out of the said sum, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd at Rs.250/- (Rs.750/- x 1/3) towards personal expenses and 2/3rd at Rs.500/- (Rs.750/- x 2/3) towards contribution to the family and awarded the compensation amount by adopting multiplier 15'. Ultimately, the Tribunal arrived at the compensation amount only at Rs.2,25,000/- and the break up particulars of compensation are as follows:- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000.00 Transport Expenses Rs. Ultimately, the Tribunal arrived at the compensation amount only at Rs.2,25,000/- and the break up particulars of compensation are as follows:- Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000.00 Transport Expenses Rs. 10,000.00 Medical Bills Rs.1,00,000.00 Loss of income (during the treatment period) Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of income to the family Rs. 90,000.00 ---------------------- Total Rs. 2,25,000.00 ---------------------- 11. Though the multiplier theory is not normally accepted in a case of injury, in this case, the claimant sustained 75% disability. Even if the decision of this Court is followed to award a maximum sum of Rs.2,000/- per percentage of disability, the claimant can be granted Rs.1,50,000/- towards permanent disability alone. Moreover, the claimant had produced medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,24,165/- before the court below but a lumpsum of Rs.1,00,000/- alone was awarded. In any event, the compensation awarded by the court below in MCOP No. 893 of 2001 cannot be said to be arbitrary or exorbitant and it is only reasonable. 12. In other cases, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.95,000/-, Rs.63,700/- and Rs.80,000/- for the serious injuries sustained by the claimants and it is in consonance with the nature of injuries and period of hospitalisation under gone by them. Moreover, the insurance company has not raised any serious dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below. 13. Under those circumstances, since the claimants were held to be third parties, the Insurance-Company is liable to pay compensation and the award passed by the Court below is confirmed. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants that the entire amount has already been deposited as per order of this Court dated 12.09.2007 and the claimants have already withdrawn 50% of the the award amount along with accrued interest. In view of the above, he claimants are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount together with accrued interest, on making proper application before the court below. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.