Judgment :- There two appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 18.6.2009 in MVC.No.250/2007 on the file of Addl. MACT, Davanagere. The Appeal in MFA.No.8515/2009 is filed by 3rd respondent before Tribunal challenging its liability to pay compensation awarded to claimant on the ground that policy issued by insurance company is a trade policy under Rule 41 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. As such, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to claimant, who was traveling in a new vehicle, which was being shifted from one place to another, wherein he was traveling along with his cocoon, which is not permissible. So far as MFA.No.6496/20009 is concerned, it is filed by claimant before Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to him in the aforesaid proceedings. 2. The admitted facts are that lorry bearing registration No.KA-01/TC-75 is belonging to 2nd respondent. Admittedly, said vehicle was a new vehicle, which was under transit from the premises of manufacturer to that of dealer. At the relevant time, said lorry was covered with trade policy issued by 3rd respondent to 2nd respondent and was driven by 1st respondent before Tribunal. It is further not in dispute that claimant was traveling in the said lorry along with his goods. On 10.9.2006 at about 7.15 pm said lorry dashed against a tractor and trailer on the left side of road in front of BMK Rice Mill on National Highway at Davanagere. In the said accident claimant suffered serious Orthopaedic injuries to his both legs and as well as to other parts of body, which required his hospitalization for a period of 445 days. During which period, he underwent prolonged treatment for several injuries involving surgery to his legs to insert implants to set right fractured bone and putting him on traction and confining him to bed for more than 1½ to 2 years. 3. In the claim petition filed before the commissioner, the owner and driver of lorry remained exparte. It is only insurer, 3rd respondent contested the claim on the ground that policy issued by it was for limited purpose of transit from the premises of manufacturer to that of dealer i.e., 2nd respondent. 3. In the claim petition filed before the commissioner, the owner and driver of lorry remained exparte. It is only insurer, 3rd respondent contested the claim on the ground that policy issued by it was for limited purpose of transit from the premises of manufacturer to that of dealer i.e., 2nd respondent. As such, 1st respondent driver of said lorry was not obliged to allow claimant to travel in the said vehicle and therefore, insurance company is not liable to cover the injuries caused to claimant in the accident involving said vehicle. However, Tribunal did not accept the contention of contesting 3rd respondent and proceeded to hold that accident causing injury to claimant is due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent and claimant is entitled to receive compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,92,800/- from both 2nd and 3rd respondents, owner and as well as insurer of said vehicle jointly and severally. Being aggrieved by the same, first of the appeals is filed by insurance company and claimant has come up in second of the appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard the appellant’s counsel in both appeals and contesting respondent. In this proceedings also, owner and driver of lorry have remained exparte. The contest is only between insurer and claimant. Perused the grounds of appeal in first of the appeals in MFA.No.8515/2009, the material on record and Rule 41 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. 5. Rule 41 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as under: “Rule 41. In this proceedings also, owner and driver of lorry have remained exparte. The contest is only between insurer and claimant. Perused the grounds of appeal in first of the appeals in MFA.No.8515/2009, the material on record and Rule 41 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. 5. Rule 41 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as under: “Rule 41. Purposes for which motor vehicle with trade certificate may be used– The holder of a trade certificate shall not use any vehicle in a public place under that certificate for any purpose other than the following:- (a) for test, by or on behalf of the holder of a trade certificate during the course of, or after completion of, construction or repair; or (b) for proceedings to or returning from a weigh bridge for or after weighment, or to and from any place for its registration: or (c) for a reasonable trial or demonstration by or for the benefit of a prospective purchaser and for proceeding to or returning from the place where such person intends to keep it; or (d) for proceeding to or returning from the promises of the dealer or of the purchaser or of any other dealer for the purpose of delivery; or (e) for proceeding to or returning from a workshop with the objective of fitting a body to the vehicle or painting or for repairs; or (f) for proceeding to or returning from airport railway station, wharf for or after being transported; or (g) for proceeding to or returning from an exhibition of motor vehicles or any place at which the vehicle is to be or has been offered for sale; or (h) for removing the vehicle after it has been taken possession of by or on behalf of the financier due to any default on the part of the other party under the provisions of an agreement of hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation.” 6. The reading of above Rule makes it clear that right of 2nd respondent owner of lorry in using said vehicle during the period of transit from the premises of manufacturer to his premises is subject to above terms, which does not permit the use of said vehicle for any purpose other than what is stated therein. The reading of above Rule makes it clear that right of 2nd respondent owner of lorry in using said vehicle during the period of transit from the premises of manufacturer to his premises is subject to above terms, which does not permit the use of said vehicle for any purpose other than what is stated therein. In that view of the mater, the conduct of 1st respondent/driver of said lorry working under 2nd respondent in carrying claimant in the said vehicle while it was under transit from Dharwad to Bangalore, is contrary to the aforesaid Rule. Therefore, the finding of Tribunal in holding that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimant along with owner of vehicle, 2nd respondent is erroneous. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observation, the appeal filed by insurance company is required to be allowed and liability fastened on it is required to be absolved. 7. Now coming to 2nd appeal in MFA.No.6496/2009 filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time of accident he was passenger in lorry bearing No.KA-01/T-75 belonging to 2nd respondent and driven by 1st respondent. It is further not in dispute that claimant has suffered crush injury over the upper 2/3rd and lower 1/3rd of left leg, exposing bone to atmosphere and deformity of left leg, crush injury of right leg at lower 1/3rd with deformity and lacerated wound over the lateral aspect of dorsum of right foot-4cmx2cm wound certificate is Ex.P19. Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere, and also photograph of claimant which is at Ex.P15. On going through said documents and on appreciation of the evidence of Doctors. PW.2 and PW.3 it is clearly seen that disability certificate issued by PW.2 to say that claimant has suffered 80% disability to the whole body cannot be disbelieved in view of the fact that he was inpatient for about 445 days in hospital and thereafter, he was confined to bed for more than 1½ to 2 years for treatment. In that view of the matter, compensation awarded by Tribunal in the following manner is required to be reassessed. 8. On going through the pleadings and material on record and the finding of Tribunal it is seen that compensation awarded by Tribunal for pain and agony at Rs.50,000/-, medical expenses at Rs.1,00,000/-, conveyance at Rs.25,000/-and attendant charges and food and nourishment at Rs.10,000/-is just and proper. 8. On going through the pleadings and material on record and the finding of Tribunal it is seen that compensation awarded by Tribunal for pain and agony at Rs.50,000/-, medical expenses at Rs.1,00,000/-, conveyance at Rs.25,000/-and attendant charges and food and nourishment at Rs.10,000/-is just and proper. However, when it comes to loss of income during treatment period, the fact that he was confined to bed for more than two years not being disputed, award of loss of income during treatment period at Rs.10,000/- is on lower side and the same is required to be enhanced by Rs.30,000/-. So far as loss of amenities is concerned, which is awarded at Rs.25,000/- is required to be enhanced by Rs.15,000/-. And so far as loss of future earning capacity awarded at Rs.1,72,800/- taking the same at 30% is required to be enhanced by taking the same at 35% instead of 30%, which comes to Rs.2,01,600/-. In the result, compensation awarded to claimant is enhanced by Rs.73,800/-. The claimant is entitled to revised total compensation in a sumo of Rs.4,66,600/-with interest at 6% from the date of petition till payment of entire amount. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed exonerating the liability of insurance company to pay compensation. So far as appeal filed by claimant is concerned, it is allowed in part enhancing the compensation payable from Rs.3,92,800/-to Rs.4,66,600/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of realization of entire amount exclusively from 2nd respondent owner of lorry. Accordingly, the judgment and award in MVC.No.520/2007 dated 18.6.2009 is modified.