JUDGMENT : Anil Sharma, J. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both these appeals have been filed against the same impugned award dated 8.9.2009 passed in claim case No. 69/2009 by learned V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Chhatarpur (MP). One appeal being MA No. 4819/2009 has been filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the award amount while another appeal being MA No. 4875/2009 has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident challenging exoneration of the insurance company and quantum of award amount by the Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated facts in narrow compass are that claimant Devideen has suffered in juries in the accident from the vehicle driven by Pappu and owned by Dhanesh and insured with Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company. Due to the injuries received in the accident, the claimant suffered paralysis. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company has fairly submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with comprehensive liability, therefore, the insurance company is jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation amount. The submission of learned counsel for the insurance company is in accordance with law; therefore, the insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. 4. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, although medical evidence shows that the claimant has suffered 50% permanent disability but the Tribunal has considered total disability against the medical evidence. 5. The claimant appeared before the Tribunal on 24.4.2009 and even at that time, he was brought by four persons and he was unable to talk, walk and speak. The evidence available on record further shows that he was absent on his duty from the date of accident which took place on 20.4.2007. Although, the claimant has suffered injuries which is medically and technically 50% permanent disability but in fact, the claimant is neither able to do the work nor he is able to earn livelihood. He is medically not fit and certainly due to such inability he has to lose job. Therefore, so far as loss of earning capacity and income is concerned, due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, his earning capacity has been affected 100%, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of total disability in spite of medical evidence of 50% permanent disability. Therefore, so far as loss of earning capacity and income is concerned, due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, his earning capacity has been affected 100%, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of total disability in spite of medical evidence of 50% permanent disability. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant has challenged only the rate of interest which is insufficient and inadequate. It is submitted by him that the Tribunal is not justified in awarding 6% interest and it should have been awarded at least 8% per annum. 7. The claimant has suffered injuries in the year 2007 and looking to the rate of interest prevailing at that time it cannot be said that interest @ 6% awarded by the Tribunal is insufficient or less, therefore, no interference in the rate of interest is required. 8. Therefore, both these appeals are partly allowed by holding that the Insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant as the vehicle was insured with comprehensive policy which includes injuries to pillion rider also. For rest of the grounds raised in both these appeals are rejected. 9. Since the insurance company is also held liable for making payment of compensation amount, therefore, amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be refunded to the owner who has deposited the amount by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid, both these appeals are disposed of.