JUDGMENT R.B. Budihal, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (SCCH-15), Bangalore, ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.7535/2004. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on two counts. One is, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and the other is for fixing the responsibility on respondent No.1-Insurance Company for payment of compensation amount awarded. 2. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that, on 18.10.2003 at about 8.30 a.m., the appellant was proceeding in a tractor bearing No.KA- 02/T-1905, wherein, he was engaged on a coolie work of loading and unloading, i.e., excavating the mud and carrying it to the farm house of the owner of the tractor and trailer. The driver of the tractor, drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which, the tractor turtled and the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was treated as an inpatient. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medicines, treatment and conveyance. Respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.1 is the insurer and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3. Respondent No.2-owner, in spite of service of notice, has not appeared before the Tribunal and he was placed ex- parte. 4. Respondent No.1-Insurance Company by filing written statement contended that the vehicle in question was not used for agricultural purpose and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation. The trailer was not insured and only the tractor was insured with respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions. Hence, there was no liability on the part of respondent No.1-Insurance Company to pay compensation. Respondent No.1 had also denied the averment that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and it was also denied that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer bearing No.KA-02-T-1905. Respondent No.1 had further stated that the appellant was travelling in the tractor and trailer and he was not entitled for compensation. The compensation claimed by the appellant was exorbitant. The averments made with reference to the age, avocation and income of the appellant is also denied. 5. Respondent No.1 had further stated that the appellant was travelling in the tractor and trailer and he was not entitled for compensation. The compensation claimed by the appellant was exorbitant. The averments made with reference to the age, avocation and income of the appellant is also denied. 5. On the basis of the pleading of both sides, the Tribunal conducted trial and ultimately, awarded the compensation amount of Rs.4,23,400/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit. The Tribunal dismissed the claim as against respondent No.1-Insurance Company and held that respondent No.2-owner is liable to pay the compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Insurance Company. 7. The points for consideration are as follows: "1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether respondent No.1-Insurance Company is liable to pay the award amount ?" 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant, during the course of his arguments, submitted that the Tribunal has not at all considered the oral and documentary evidence on the side of the appellant properly and ignored the evidence of the Doctors, PWs.2 and 4, in assessing the disability to the appellant. The Tribunal has also not considered about loss of future earning, even though the oral evidence is to the effect that the appellant has completely become incapable to attend any work in future. This aspect has been completely ignored by the Tribunal. The learned counsel has also made a submission that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the appellant which was claimed. It is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly cast the liability only on respondent No.2-owner of the tractor and trailer and respondent No.1- Insurance Company is totally exonerated from the liability. The learned counsel has also made a submission that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the appellant which was claimed. It is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly cast the liability only on respondent No.2-owner of the tractor and trailer and respondent No.1- Insurance Company is totally exonerated from the liability. Hence, the learned Counsel made a submission that when there is evidence to show that the tractor was also insured with respondent No.1-Insurance Company and when the documents were produced by respondent No.1-Insurance Company as per Exs.R1 to R3, which makes clear that the tractor was also insured with respondent No.1-Insurance Company, the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, and ought to have fixed the liability even on respondent No.1- Insurance Company. Hence, he submitted to allow the appeal and to enhance the compensation amount as prayed for and also to fix the liability on respondent No.1-Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Insurance Company, during the course of his arguments, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the materials on record, both oral and documentary evidence and rightly awarded the compensation amount, which is just and reasonable compensation and there are no reasons for this Court to modify the award of the Tribunal and to enhance the compensation amount. Regarding the liability, the learned counsel made a submission that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral evidence of the parties and also the documents produced and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the trailer was not insured with respondent No.1- Insurance Company as on the date of the accident. Even the policy terms and conditions in respect of the tractor goes to show that only one person is allowed to travel and the evidence on record clearly shows that five persons were travelling in the trailer. Hence, the learned counsel made a submission that the Tribunal has considered all these aspects and properly appreciated the case in fixing the liability only on Respondent No.2-owner of the tractor and trailer. He submitted that no illegality has been committed nor perverse opinion has been taken by the Tribunal in coming to such a conclusion. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Perused the materials on record and the evidence, both oral and documentary. He submitted that no illegality has been committed nor perverse opinion has been taken by the Tribunal in coming to such a conclusion. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. Perused the materials on record and the evidence, both oral and documentary. The accident in question and the appellant-claimant sustaining the injuries are not in dispute. As on the date of the accident, the appellant was aged 26 years. Regarding the income of the appellant, though it is claimed in the petition that he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month, no documents were produced by the appellant and hence, the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Regarding loss of future earning, the Tribunal has taken into consideration 30% of permanent disability to the whole body and applied multiplier of 17, but looking to the evidence of the Doctors -P.Ws.2 and 4, it clearly goes to show that the disability to the whole body would be 50% and not 30%. P.W.2 Doctor in his evidence, by way of an affidavit filed before the Tribunal, has stated that the appellant has sustained four injuries which are mentioned at Sl. Nos.1 to 4 of paragraph-2 of his affidavit. He has further deposed that on clinical and radiological examination, he found the disability with the appellant as mentioned in Sl. Nos.1 to 11 of paragraph 4 of his affidavit. He has further deposed that the permanent disability to the whole body of the appellant is 40%. But, during the course of the cross examination of this witness, nothing worthwhile has been elicited so as to disbelieve his version regarding injuries sustained by the appellant. So also P.W.4, another Doctor, has deposed in his evidence that the appellant has sustained the injuries which are mentioned at Sl. Nos.1 to 6 of paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed by him. He has also deposed that on clinical and radiological examination of the appellant, he found the disability mentioned at Sl. Nos.1 to 9 of paragraph-4 of the affidavit. He has further deposed that all the movements are restricted and the patient is depressed due to lack of sexual life and normal leading life because of SPC. He has assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 50% to the whole body. Nos.1 to 9 of paragraph-4 of the affidavit. He has further deposed that all the movements are restricted and the patient is depressed due to lack of sexual life and normal leading life because of SPC. He has assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 50% to the whole body. The Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 while assessing the permanent disability to the whole body of the appellant-claimant. With regard to the age of the appellant, in one medical record, it is mentioned as 23 years, in another record, it is mentioned as 24 years and the appellant, while filing the claim petition before the Tribunal, himself has mentioned his age as 20 years. Therefore, taking the average age, he comes within the age limit of 21 to 25 years. Hence the proper multiplier applicable is 18. Therefore, if the income of the appellant is taken at Rs.3,000/-per month, then the loss of future earning comes to Rs.3,24,000/- (3,000x12x18x50/100). Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant- claimant, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards pain and sufferings at Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.70,000/-. Regarding compensation towards medical expenses, loss of income during the laid up period of 6 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/-per month and future medical expenses, the Tribunal has correctly assessed at Rs.61,800/-, Rs.18,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively, and it does not call for interference. With regard to loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-. But looking to the nature of injuries sustained and the percentage of disability that the appellant is not able to attend to his work in future, he is entitled to Rs.60,000/- as against Rs.30,000/-towards loss of amenities. The Doctors who have been examined by the appellant as P.Ws.2 and 4 have clearly deposed about the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the appellant. P.W.2 -Doctor has also deposed in his evidence that the appellant is unmarried. The disability will affect his marital life, if he gets married. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation amount in respect of the marriage prospects of the appellant, which fact is totally ignored by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a reasonable amount of Rs.50,000/- towards marriage prospects. The disability will affect his marital life, if he gets married. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation amount in respect of the marriage prospects of the appellant, which fact is totally ignored by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a reasonable amount of Rs.50,000/- towards marriage prospects. Hence, looking to the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal needs modification and the appellant is entitled to the compensation amount under the different heads as follows: Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs. 61,800/- Towards loss of income during the laid up period of six months Rs. 18,000/- Towards Loss of amenities Rs. 60,000/- Towards loss of future earning Rs. 3,24,000/- Towards future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/- Towards marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs.6,33,800/- The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,23,400/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,10,400/-. 11. With reference to the liability of respondent No.1-Insurance Company to pay compensation, the Tribunal has rightly discussed the evidence of the parties, both oral and documentary, and held that the appellant has failed to make out the case that the trailer in which he was travelling was also insured with respondent No.1- Insurance Company as on the date of the accident. It is the evidence on the side of the appellant himself that about four persons were travelling in the said tractor. The Tribunal considered the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and rightly came to the conclusion that in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the case on hand, those decisions were not applicable to the facts of the present case in fixing the liability on the respondent No.1-Insurance Company. Therefore, the contention of the appellant herein that the liability ought to have been fixed on respondent No.1- Insurance Company cannot be accepted at all and no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in fixing the liability only on respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle. The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,10,400/-has to be recovered from respondent No.2 - owner with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till date of realization. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.2,10,400/-has to be recovered from respondent No.2 - owner with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till date of realization. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 26.11.2009 passed in MVC No.7535/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH15), Bangalore, is modified in the above terms. Respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, out of the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,10,400/-, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with proportionate interest shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, in the name of the appellant for a period of ten years and renewable for another five years, with liberty to him to withdraw the interest accrued on it. Remaining amount of Rs.60,400/-with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the appellant immediately.