JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar and Dinesh Gupta,JJ. This First Appeal from Order is preferred against the order dated 22.1.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffar Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No.1114 of 2012. 2. The claimant appellant hereinafter called 'the appellant' filed the Motor Accident petition bearing no.1114 of 2012. Against the respondents opposite parties the claimant claimed compensation arising out of the accident occurred on 4.5.2012 at about 6.45 A.M. near Akbargarh Bus Stand. As per the claim petition on the fateful day the claimant appellant was travelling with his son on his motor cycle no. H.R.-01 W 0759. The offending vehicle Tata Magic temporary no. U.D.B. 001-234 (now) U.P. 12-T6467 came from behind and hit the motor cycle causing grievous injuries to the claimant. The claimant was referred to the hospital and thereafter he remained under treatment in Anand Hospital Meerut and thereafter in order to save his life at Anand Hospital, Muzaffarnagar the doctors amputated one limb of the claimant around 1' from the ankle. 3. The treatment of the petitioner claimant is still continuing from the time of accident. The petitioner was 76 years of age and was doing cultivation as well as having she buffalow and was earning about Rs.13,000/- per month. 4. The accident was reported in the concerned police station by the claimant's son. 5. The opposite party, United India Insurance Company filed his written statement and stated that there is a delay of about 15 days in lodging the FIR. The disputed vehicle Tata Magic was not involved in the accident and the Tata Magic was driven by its driver in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policies, hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Opposite party, owner of the vehicle as well as the driver of the offending vehicle inspite of service upon them, they did not file any written statement. 7. After taking the evidence by the tribunal, the tribunal decided that the accident has occurred at the relevant time, place and the accident has taken place due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. The tribunal also held that vehicle was driven against the conditions of the Insurance policy and held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 9. 8. The tribunal also held that vehicle was driven against the conditions of the Insurance policy and held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 9. On the point of quantum the court after considering the evidence and record awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.3,81,757/- along with the interest @ of 6%. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 12. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the income of the claimant was fully proved to the tune of Rs.13,000/- by agricultural and milk dairy and there was no evidence in rebuttal. The tribunal has wrongly calculated the compensation on the basis of notional Income of Rs.3000/-. 13. The tribunal has wrongly rejected the disability certificate issued by the medical board showing the disability of the claimant upto 50%. 14. The tribunal has committed illegality in calculating compensation accepting 50% of earning while infact the petitioner due to amputation of his left leg was 100% disabled. 15. That the tribunal has not awarded the actual medical expenses occurred in the treatment of the claimant. 16. The claimant erred in not considering the future prospect while calculating the compensation. 17. The tribunal has awarded the less interest. 18. The tribunal also did not fasten the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Corporation even if the vehicle was driven against the breach of policy conditions. 19. The Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and they could have recovered the same from the owner. 20. The counsel also submitted that the court has not properly awarded the compensation under the heading of loss of earnings and for future treatment as well as for pains and sufferings. 21. The counsel also relied upon G. Ravindranath @ R. Chowdhary Vs. E. Srinivas and another 2013(4) T.A.C. 849 (S.C.) and Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways 2014(103) ALR 204(S.C.). 22. We are unable to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the fasten of liability to pay compensation on the O.P. no.2 and 3 is concerned they have not filed any appeal, therefore, claimant can not raise this argument before this Court. The appellant has to receive the compensation from the owner of the vehicle in question. 23. So far as the fasten of liability to pay compensation on the O.P. no.2 and 3 is concerned they have not filed any appeal, therefore, claimant can not raise this argument before this Court. The appellant has to receive the compensation from the owner of the vehicle in question. 23. So far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, the tribunal has considered the age of the appellant which is 76 years and has taken into consideration notional Income of the appellant and also allowed the treatment expenses as claimed by the petitioner and the expenses supported by medical bills and vouchers. The claimant himself filed its disability certificate showing the disability to the tune of 50% and the tribunal has rightly considered the age of the claimant. There appears to be no illegality in awarding the interest @ of 6%. 24. So far as the case law relied upon by the appellant in G. Ravindranath (supra) is concerned the claimant was 19 years of age and in the accident his hip bone was totally crushed and he sustained Urithral injury (total urithal rupture) and as per the medical opinion he became impotent during his whole life. Considering this special situation, the supreme court awarded compensation on different footing taking into consideration the age of the victim, the life long treatment and agony of impotent and also required treatment in future which is not the case in the present appeal. 25. The deceased was 76 years of age and in accident its left leg was amputated. Similarly in the case of Sanjay Verma (supra) the petitioner was 25 years of age and he was married and his wife was only 22 years of age and the claimant had one son who was 1 ½ years of age. In the accident the appellant suffered multiple injuries. He suffered a fracture of the spinal cord resulting in the paralysis of his whole body. In that case Hon. Apex Court after considering the future treatment pain and sufferings and the marital status of the victim and his age, awarded compensation on different footings while the facts of this case is totally different from the case referred by the counsel for the appellant. 26. In that case Hon. Apex Court after considering the future treatment pain and sufferings and the marital status of the victim and his age, awarded compensation on different footings while the facts of this case is totally different from the case referred by the counsel for the appellant. 26. The tribunal has given a categorical findings and awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- for the permanent disability, Rs.2,71,757/- the amount spent in the treatment, Rs.5,000/- for mental pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- for food and supplement and Rs. 5,000/- in transportation and total award of Rs.3,81,757/- and also awarded interest. 27. We find no illegality in the computation of the compensation and the amount awarded by the tribunal is just compensation. No other point is raised. Appeal is dismissed.