JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 19-05-07 passed by MACT, Jhabua in Claim Case No.24/04, whereby claim petition filed by appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was awarded and respondent No. 3 was exonerated with a direction to pay and recover from respondent Nos. 1 & 2, present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 28-04-03 appellant was going in a tempo (Minidoor) bearing registration No.MP/45-K/0043 which was owned by respondent No.2, driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 the said tempo met with an accident, with the result appellant and other occupant sustained grievous injuries. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. Along with appellant, 9 other injured persons also filed the claim petitions. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on various grounds, including on the ground that the offending vehicle was overloaded in violation of terms of policy, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petitions filed by the appellant and other claimants and awarded compensation, but exonerated respondent No.3, however directed that respondent No.3 shall pay and recover the same from respondent Nos.1 & 2, against which present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the appellant sustained two fractures. It is submitted that appellant remained hospitalized for a period of two weeks. It is submitted that appellant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 10%. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, breakup of which is as under : Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 2,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 25,000/- 4. Learned counsel further submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate as on number of heads no amount has been awarded and the amount awarded on all the heads is on lower side. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and compensation be enhanced accordingly. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and compensation be enhanced accordingly. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have also filed the cross-objection. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant amount awarded by the Darned Tribunal is just and proper. So far as tight of recovery against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is concerned, it is submitted that since the offending vehicle is insured, therefore. Iearned Tribunal committed error in giving such type of direction. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the offending ve hide was overloaded, then too, respondent' No. 3 is liable to satisfy the award in these cases, of which liability was covered under the policy. It is submitted that as per policy liability of 6 + 1 passenger was covered. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam, 2007 ACJ 2129 wherein bus fell in a nallah leading to death of 25 passengers and driver and 63 passengers sustained injuries and bus had seating capacity of 42 passengers, Hon'ble Apex Court held that Insurance Company is liable only in respect of number of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of other passengers involved in the accident in case of overloading. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam, 2011 ACJ 917 wherein jeep authorised to carry 5 passengers besides driver but carrying 15 passengers, Hon'ble Apex Court held that liability of Insurance Company was directed to pay amount of all the awards to the claimants and recover the amount in excess of its liability from the owner in execution. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and cross-objection filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 be allowed and award be modified accordingly. 6. In the present case undisputedly respondent No. 3 is liable to satisfy seven awards including driver, while by the impugned award it is 10 claim petitions which were filed. 1 & 2 be allowed and award be modified accordingly. 6. In the present case undisputedly respondent No. 3 is liable to satisfy seven awards including driver, while by the impugned award it is 10 claim petitions which were filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal committed error in giving right of recovery to respondent No. 3 in all the claim cases, as respondent No. 3 was liable to satisfy seven awards including the award if any in favour of driver. 7. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant it appears that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. Appellant shall be entitled for the following amount : Towards grievous injuries Rs. 30,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attendees: Rs. 5,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Towards special diet Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of income Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 60,000/- 8. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs.60,000/-instead of Rs.30,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of application. 9. So far as liability of respondent No. 3 is concerned, respondent No. 3 shall be liable to satisfy the claim of the appellant. 10. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of.