JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-insurer has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act") and has questioned the award, dated 17th June, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Petition No. 6 FTC/2 of 05/2006, titled as Shri Parkash Bahadur v. Smt. Neelam Aggarwal and Others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,67,830 came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit of the same (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award") on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief Facts: The claimant-Parkash Bahadur was engaged as a laboures for loading and unloading of the goods by the owner and the driver of the vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-13-0479, was travelling on 23rd November, 2003 in the said vehicle which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver, namely Shri Vijay Kumar. The said vehicle met with an accident at place Dolag, District Solan, the claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Zonal Hospital, Solan, remained admitted there from 23rd November, 2003 to 1st December, 2003 and has remained bed ridden for sometime. He was again admitted in the hospital for 20th and 21st January, 2004. He has suffered 30% permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity and has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. five lacs as per the breaks up given in the claim petition. 2. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 29th June, 2006: "1. Whether the petitioner received injuries by use of vehicle No. HP-13-0479? --OPP 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? --OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable in this Court in view of preliminary objection No. 1 raised by respondent No. 3? --OPR-3 4. Whether the driver of vehicle No. HP-13-0479 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? --OPR-3 5. Whether there did not exist any valid R.C., Route permit and Fitness Certificate, etc. Whether petition is not maintainable in this Court in view of preliminary objection No. 1 raised by respondent No. 3? --OPR-3 4. Whether the driver of vehicle No. HP-13-0479 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? --OPR-3 5. Whether there did not exist any valid R.C., Route permit and Fitness Certificate, etc. in respect of the vehicle No. HP-13-0479 at the time of accident? --OPR-3 6. Relief." 3. The following additional issue came to be framed by the Tribunal on 13th June, 2007: "5-A. Whether at the time of accident, the claimant was travelling in the vehicle No. HP-13-0479 as an unauthorised and gratuitous passenger, if so, its effect? --OPR-3" 4. The claimant has examined HC Radhey Sharma as PW-1, appeared himself in the witness box as PW-2 and examined Dr. R.P. Sahni as PW-3. The respondents have examined Shri V.S. Dadwal as RW-1, Shri Satya Prakash as RW-2, ASI Narayan Singh as RW-3 and the owner-insured herself appeared in the witnesses box as RW-4. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the oral as well as documentary evidence, held that the claimant has proved that he had sustained injuries in a vehicular/traffic accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Vijay Kumar, while driving the offending vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-13-0479, rashly and negligently and, after deciding all the issues, held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,67,830 with interest @ 6% per annum. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer-appellant has questioned the impugned award, so far it relates to saddling it with liability, by the medium of this appeal. The owner-insured, the driver and the claimant have not questioned the impugned award, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 7. Learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant argued that the labourer is not covered under the insurance policy and Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling it with liability. Thus, the only issue to be determined in this appeal is-whether the insurer-appellant has to indemnify the insured as per the terms of the insurance policy and was to be saddled with liability? 8. Before I will determine the said dispute/issue, I deem it proper to have a glance of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5: 9. 8. Before I will determine the said dispute/issue, I deem it proper to have a glance of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5: 9. I have gone through the record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The claimant-injured has proved that he had sustained injuries due to use of motor vehicle, i.e. the offending vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-13-0479. The insurer-appellant has failed to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable or the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident or the offending vehicle was not having valid documents/route permit/registration certificate. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are upheld. Issue Nos. 2 and 5-A: 10. It appears that during the pendency of the claim petition, the Tribunal has also framed an additional issue on 13th June, 2007. Though, the said issue was covered in terms of issue No. 2 and there was no need to frame the same, however, I deem it proper to decide issue Nos. 2 and 5-A together. The insurer-appellant has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger. The insurer-appellant has also not pleaded the said ground in its reply to the claim petition. 11. The adequacy of compensation is not in dispute. Admittedly, the claimant-injured has suffered 30% permanent disability. It also has affected his earning capacity. He was admitted in the hospital and had spent Rs. 30,000 for his treatment. The Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 2, after making the guess work and while keeping in view the 30% permanent disability suffered by the claimant-injured and the medical/expert opinion, has held that the claimant has lost 30% of future income per day and assessed loss of Rs. 630 per month. Multiplier of 16' was applied and the claimant-injured was held entitled to Rs. 1,20,960 under the head "loss of earning". The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 30,000 under the head "pain and sufferings", Rs. 770 under the head "loss of income during the period of admission in the hospital", Rs. 1,100 under the head "diet expenses" and Rs. 5,000 under the head "medical expenses". 12. 1,20,960 under the head "loss of earning". The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 30,000 under the head "pain and sufferings", Rs. 770 under the head "loss of income during the period of admission in the hospital", Rs. 1,100 under the head "diet expenses" and Rs. 5,000 under the head "medical expenses". 12. The amount, on the face of it, is too inadequate, while keeping in view the fact that the claimant-injured has suffered 30% permanent disability, which has shattered his physical frame, affected his income and has suffered pain and sufferings and has to suffer throughout his life. The claimant has not questioned the impugned award, therefore, I reluctantly maintain the amount of compensation awarded, i.e. Rs. 1,67,830 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its deposition. 13. The question is--who is to be saddled with liability? Learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant argued that the labourer was not covered as per the insurance policy. There is no evidence, what to speak of proof, on the file to this effect. The appellant insurer has also not proved that the labourer was not covered in terms of the insurance policy. The driver and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle have admitted that they have engaged the claimant-injured as labourer for loading and unloading the shuttering from the vehicle, thus, cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger or travelling in the said vehicle unauthorizedly. 14. The insurer-appellant has pleaded in its reply to para 10 of the claim petition that the claimant-injured was not engaged as a labourer in the offending vehicle, the insured-owner and the driver have admitted in their replies that the claimant-injured was engaged by them as a labourer for loading and unloading the shuttering. 15. There is ample evidence on the file, which do disclose that the claimant-injured was working as a labourer. 16. I have gone through the insurance policy. The offending vehicle was having seating capacity of Rs. 1 + 3' i.e. Rs. 4'. The basic liability was covered for an amount of Rs. 13,280 and the driver and unpaid passengers were covered for an amount of Rs. 100. Meaning thereby, the driver and three other persons were covered for Rs. 100, i.e. Rs. 25 per person, as the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was given as Rs. 4'. The basic liability was covered for an amount of Rs. 13,280 and the driver and unpaid passengers were covered for an amount of Rs. 100. Meaning thereby, the driver and three other persons were covered for Rs. 100, i.e. Rs. 25 per person, as the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was given as Rs. 1 + 3' as given in the insurance policy itself. 17. There is not even a single iota of evidence on the file which can be made basis for holding that the labourer was not covered under the insurance policy. Admittedly, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle covers the seating capacity of Rs. 1 + 3', i.e. 4'. Even otherwise, a labourer travelling in a goods vehicle for the purpose of loading and unloading is a 'third party' in terms of Section 147 read with Section 149 of the M.V. Act and the insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly returned the findings on issue Nos. 2 and 5-A. 18. Having said so, the appeal merits to be dismissed and the impugned award merits to be upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 19. The awarded amount be deposited before the Registry within eight weeks, if not already deposited. The Registry to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.