JUDGMENT B. Sreenivas Gowda, J. 1. As these two appeals are arising out of a common Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of finally by this common Judgment with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. 2. The claimant having sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 11.01.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of a Bajaj luggage auto bearing registration No. KA-18-7090 by its driver, filed a claim petition in MVC No. 183/2010 before the MACT, Shimoga, seeking compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) from the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,74,478/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment and directed the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to pay the said amount to the claimant on the ground that the claimant having travelled in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger the insurer of the vehicle is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimant and dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Co. 3. The claimant aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal both on liability as well as quantum has preferred MFA No. 4580/2010, whereas the owner of the offending vehicle has preferred MFA No. 5592/2010 challenging the said judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability. 4. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident that occurred on 11-01-2005 due to rash and negligent driving of a Bajaj luggage auto bearing registration No. KA-18-7090 (hereinafter referred to as the offending auto) by its driver, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the finding of the Tribunal on liability in directing the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimant is sustainable in law? ii) Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? 5. ii) Whether quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement? 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the owner of the offending vehicle submit, the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle belonging to the appellant in MFA No. 5592/2010 and its seating capacity is 1 + 1. They submit that as on the date of accident, it was engaged by the claimant for the purpose of transporting arecanuts from Ambalike to Tirthahalli in order to sell the same at APMC market, Tirthahalli and when it was proceeding on Devangi - Tirthahalli N.H. 13 tar road, it fell into a drainage due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. As a result, both the claimant as well as the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries and they were taken to J.C. Hospital, Tirthahalli and after providing first aid, the claimant was referred to KMC Hospital, Manipal, for further treatment. They further submit, even though R.W. 1 examined by the insurer of the offending vehicle in his cross examination has admitted that the claimant was transporting arecanuts in the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that claimant had travelled in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and therefore the insurer of the vehicle is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimant. They submit, seating capacity of the offending vehicle mentioned as 1' in the 'B' register extract produced at Ex. P. 5, is excluding the driver of the vehicle, as rightly mentioned in the cover note of the insurance policy produced at Ex. R. 3. Therefore, they submit that the insurance Co, is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the following judgments: a) ILR 2002 Kar 870 (SC) - Ramesh Kumar & others v. National Insurance Company Limited & others. b) ILR 2011 Kar 5790 - "Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagesh and another" c) ILR 2008 Kar 4414 - "The Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Shashidhara & another" d) ILR 2001 Kar 2557 - "Mounesh v. Thimmanna & others" e) ILR 2012 Kar 4999 - "The New India Assurance company Limited v. Usha & others" f) ILR 2011 Kar 5902 - "National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep by its Administrative Officer v. Rudregowda alias Rudregowdappa Shivanagowda & another" g) ILR 2012 Kar 2151 - "Smt. Alamel-amma v. Sri H.M. Haananda Reddy & another" h) (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 388 - Saroj and others v. Het Lal & others". 7. Regarding quantum, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits, the Tribunal in spite of noticing that claimant has sustained fracture of tibia and fibula and deep cut injuries on the said leg, has committed an error in awarding meagre compensation of Rs. 1,74,478/-. He submits, the claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 30 days in two private hospitals on two different occasions and the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meagre compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant and conveyance charges, Rs. 2,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. He submits, claimant who is an agriculturist by profession, after sustaining fracture of tibia and fibula, is not in a position to pursue his avocation and he suffers loss in his future income, whereas, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing his income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and awarding meagre compensation of Rs. 61,200/- towards loss of future income. He submits, interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. is also on the lower side and therefore he prays for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Whereas, Sri Rajagopalan, and Sri M. Narayanappa appearing for the insurer in MFA. No. 4580/2010 and MFA No. 5592/2010 respectively submit, the claimant having travelled in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger, his risk is not covered and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against the insurance Co. and directing the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant. They submit that seating capacity of the vehicle mentioned as 1' in the 'B' register extract - Ex. P. 5 is inclusive of driver and that there is no provision for any other person to travel in the vehicle. Thereby, their submission is, the finding of the Tribunal on liability does not call for interference of this Court. 9. Regarding quantum, the learned Counsel submits, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement and they pray for dismissal of both the appeals. 10. Thereby, their submission is, the finding of the Tribunal on liability does not call for interference of this Court. 9. Regarding quantum, the learned Counsel submits, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement and they pray for dismissal of both the appeals. 10. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the following judgments: 1. AIR 2008 SC 2871 - "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh. K.K. & another". 2. Unreported judgment of this Court in MFA No. 9059/2010 disposed of on 07.06.2012. Regarding Point No. 1 : The claimant in his claim petition as well in his evidence has specifically stated that on 11.01.2005 at 4.45 p.m. when he was transporting arecanuts in a hired Bajaj Luggage Auto bearing registration No. KA-18-7090, to sell the same at Thirthahalli APMC market and when it came near Devangi-Thirthahalli NH. 13 tar road, it fell into a drainage due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his left leg and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident he was taken to Sri Jayachamarajendra Hospital, Thirthahalli for treatment and after first aid, he was shifted to KMC hospital Manipal for further treatment. The claimant in his complaint lodged to the Police immediately after the accident has stated the same thing and it was mentioned so in the FIR registered by the Police and marked as Ex. P. 2. 11. P.W. 2 - Harisha, has stated in his evidence that, on the date of accident he was proceeding behind the offending auto which was carrying arecanuts and claimant was sitting in the cabin next to the driver of the auto and when it was so proceeding on Devangi - Tirthahalli N.H. 13 tar road, the auto fell into the drainage due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and claimant and owner/driver sustained injuries. Immediately he shifted both the claimant and the owner cum driver of the auto to the hospital with the help of other two persons by name - Suresh and Manappa and at the request of the claimant, he returned to the spot and shifted the arecanut bags thrown on the spot to his residence, which were later taken by the father-in-law of the claimant and sold at APMC, Tirthahalli and nothing worth is elicited from this witness. 12. Even R.W. 1 - the Administrative Officer of the insurance Co. in his cross examination has admitted as under: "The offending Bajaj auto had the insurance policy at the time of the accident. On 11-01-2005 the claimant was transporting arecanut bags belonging to him in the offending vehicle. It may be true that the said arecanuts might have been sold at APMC, Tirthahalli, as per Ex. P. 129. The driver may be having licence to drive the goods vehicle. It is true that the insurance policy came to be issued based on the cover note and in the cover note, seating capacity is mentioned as 1+1. It is true that the insurance Co. is liable to pay compensation in all cases." 13. Panchanama - Ex. P. 127 was not drawn immediately after the accident and it was drawn on the next day on 12.01.2005 and consequently arecanut bags do not find place in the mahazar. It was so explained by P.W. 2 in his evidence that after shifting the claimant and the owner-cum-driver of the auto to the hospital, he returned to the spot and shifted the arecanut bags to his residence as requested by the claimant and thereafter they were collected by the father-in-law of the claimant and sold at APMC, Tirthahalli. It was so explained by P.W. 2 in his evidence that after shifting the claimant and the owner-cum-driver of the auto to the hospital, he returned to the spot and shifted the arecanut bags to his residence as requested by the claimant and thereafter they were collected by the father-in-law of the claimant and sold at APMC, Tirthahalli. The Tribunal without considering the FIR wherein it was clearly mentioned that claimant was transporting the arecanut bags in the offending vehicle in order to sell the same at APMC market of Tirthahalli, the admission made by R.W. 1 that at the time of accident claimant was transporting the arecanut bags in the offending vehicle and the evidence of P.W. 2 that claimant was transporting the arecanut bags in the offending vehicle which met with an accident and immediately he shifted the claimant and the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle to the hospital and he returned to the spot and shifted the arecanut bags to his residence as requested by the claimant and it was later collected by the father-in-law of the claimant and sold at APMC market of Tirthahalli, has committed an error in holding that the claimant had travelled in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The oral and documentary evidence on record would clearly disclose that the claimant had travelled in the offending auto along with the arecanut bags. Consequently his risk is covered and therefore the insurer of offending vehicle is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and pay compensation to the claimant. 14. In order to appreciate whether seating capacity of the offending vehicle mentioned as 1' in the 'B' register extract marked as Ex. P. 5 is inclusive of driver or not, it is useful to extract Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, which reads as under:-- "100. Carriage of persons in goods vehicle. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle : Provided that the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in uniform travelling on duty may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried,-- (i) In light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs. not more than one; Rule 100(1) of the Rules that, no person shall be carried in the goods vehicle has got an exception, which is clear by reading of proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 100, which says that the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in uniform travelling on duty may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried in light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs. not more than one. 15. As per 'B' register extract of the offending vehicle produced at Ex. P. 5, the vehicle is classified as 'light goods vehicle with 3 wheels'. Seating capacity mentioned as 1' must be, exclusive of the driver of the vehicle. Otherwise the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle, carried free of charge, or a police officer in uniform travelling on duty may be carried in a goods vehicle, as provided under Rule 100(1) of the Rules would have no meaning. This is further clear if we read the cover note of the insurance policy produced at Ex. R. 3, wherein under the column 'passenger', it is mentioned as 1 + 1. Though it is not the ground on which the Tribunal has fastened liability on the owner, however there is no merit in the argument of the insurer that seating capacity of the vehicle being 1' i.e. the driver, there is no provision for any of the person including the claimant to travel in the offending auto. In fact this issue has already been covered against the insurer by the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in ILR 2002 Kar 870 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3363 ). Other judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties have no application to the facts of the case. Therefore, it is unnecessary to refer to them. For the reasons stated above, it is held that claimant having travelled in the offending vehicle along with the arecanut bags, his risk is covered under the policy and therefore Insurance Co. is liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation awarded to the claimant. Therefore, it is unnecessary to refer to them. For the reasons stated above, it is held that claimant having travelled in the offending vehicle along with the arecanut bags, his risk is covered under the policy and therefore Insurance Co. is liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation awarded to the claimant. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. Regarding Point No. 2: 16. As per Ex. P. 3-wound certificate, claimant had sustained fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg and deep cut injuries to the said leg. Injuries sustained and treatment undergone by him are also evident from the case sheet–Ex. P. 131, disability certificate-Ex. P. 132 and x-ray-Ex. P. 133 and corroborated by the oral evidence of the claimant and doctor who were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 3 respectively. 17. Considering nature of injuries sustained and treatment undergone by the claimant, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering as against Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 18. As Rs. 43,278/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is as per medical bills produced by the claimant, it is just and proper and it does not require enhancement. 19. Claimant has undergone treatment for 30 days on two different occasions in two different hospitals. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs. 7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 20. Claimant has not substantiated his contention that he was earning Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum by doing agriculture, by adducing cogent evidence. In the absence of proof of income, considering his age as 30 years, year of accident as 2005 and his avocation as an agriculturist, his income could be easily assessed at Rs. 3,500/- per month as against Rs. 3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. Nature of injuries suggest that he must have been under rest and treatment for a period of four months. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 14,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 21. Considering nature of injuries sustained, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness which the claimant has to undergo for the rest of his life, Rs. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 14,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under this head. 21. Considering nature of injuries sustained, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness which the claimant has to undergo for the rest of his life, Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of amenities is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement. 22. The claimant is aged about 30 years. Multiplier applicable to his age group is 17'. RW. 2 doctor has stated, claimant has suffered disability of 30% to the limb, so disability to the whole body comes to 10%. Now the income of the claimant is assessed at Rs. 3,500/- per month. So future loss of income works out to Rs. 71,400/- (Rs. 3,500/- x 12 x 10/100 x 17) and it is awarded. Interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% p.a. is just and reasonable and it does not require interference. 23. Thus the claimant is entitled for the following compensation: 1) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 2) Medical Charges Rs.43,278/- 3) Incidental expenses Rs.12,000/- 4) Towards loss of income during laid up period Rs.14,000/- 5) Towards loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- 6) Future loss of income Rs.71,400/- Total Rs.2,10,678/- 24. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed and the judgment and awards of the Tribunal are modified to the extent stated herein above. 25. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,10,678/- as against Rs. 1,74,478/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. on the additional compensation of Rs. 36,200/- from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The Insurance Co. 25. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,10,678/- as against Rs. 1,74,478/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. on the additional compensation of Rs. 36,200/- from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as additional compensation amount awarded by this Court with interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, from which 75% with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in FD in the name of the claimant in any nationalized or scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years, with a right of option for him to withdraw interest periodically and the remaining amount is ordered to be deposited in FD in the name of the claimant in any nationalized or scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years, with a right of option for him to withdraw interest periodically and the remaining amount is ordered to be released in his favour. No order as to costs.