JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the claimants against the award dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura in Case No. T.S. (MAC) 35 of 2009 whereby, he held the claimants entitled to compensation of Rs.1,71,000/-. The learned Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and held the owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 2. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that earlier the appellants had filed Case No. T.S. (MAC) 19 of 2009 before the same Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and in Para 9 of the petition it was stated as follows:- “9) Was the person in respect of whom compensation is claimed travelled by the vehicle involved in the accident if so gave the name of stationing of journey and destination:- Yes, the deceased was private employee, worked as rice mill driver at Durlovnarayan, “NIKITA RICE SELLING and Wheat gringing Unit” rice mill. That in the date of incident at the evening he came to house as his father was ill, suffering from hyper tension, fever, bomitting. On the same day in the night at about 9 p.m. his father condition became wrose (sic) then the deceased came out from house to take medicine for his father from Sonamura Bazar. Hence he waited for passenger Bus Jeep etc. at Sonapur Bazar adjacent to Kathalia Sonamura road. At that time a Mahindra DI bearing No. TRO1E 1671 was standing in Sonapur Bazar Chowmohani with loaded goods. Then the deceased told his problem to driver. Accordingly driver of the offending vehicle boarded him into the jeep. When the Mahindra DI reach at Bejimara South Side of Sanghati Bridge with high speed and negligent driving then vehicle fell down into road side ditch. As a result the deceased person sustained grivious injury on their persons and after few times he was taken at Sonamura Rural Hospital & there attending doctor declared him as he is died.” 3. Similar averments were made in Para 21 of the petition. The said petition was withdrawn on 09.06.2009 with liberty to file a fresh petition. As a result the deceased person sustained grivious injury on their persons and after few times he was taken at Sonamura Rural Hospital & there attending doctor declared him as he is died.” 3. Similar averments were made in Para 21 of the petition. The said petition was withdrawn on 09.06.2009 with liberty to file a fresh petition. The order allowing withdrawal of the petition is a totally cryptic order because no formal defect was pointed out at the time of withdrawing of the petition. 4. Be that as it may, the petition was withdrawn and thereafter, a fresh petition being T.S. (MAC) No.35 of 2009 was filed and in this the version of the accident given was totally different and in Para 9 it was stated as follows:- “9) Was the person in respect of whom compensation is claimed, travelled by the vehicle involved in the accident, if so gave the name of station of journey and destination:- Yes the deceased was a business man. On the date of incedent he purchased near about 400 kg garlics from local market and its store at Sonapur Chowmohani near Sonapur market. There after he hired the vehicle No-TR-01-E-1671 (Mahindra D/I and engaged labours for lodaded the said garlics. Accordingly the said garlics loded on the said vehicle at about 9.15 P.M. at Sonapur Chowmohani. The owner of the garlics (Deceased) Imman Hossain and his labourers boarded on the said vehicle at Sonapur Chowmohani to carray (sic) to Melaghar market and unloded the same. Hence destination was Melaghar Market. Iman hossain was owner of the goods. When the vehicle reached south side of Sanghati Bridge, the vehicle fall down beside the road and meet accident. That due to said accident Imman Hossain received grievous injuries on his head and chest. From the place of occurrence he taken in to Sonamura Rural Hospital. The doctor on duty declared him dead. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver.” 5. That due to said accident Imman Hossain received grievous injuries on his head and chest. From the place of occurrence he taken in to Sonamura Rural Hospital. The doctor on duty declared him dead. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver.” 5. Whereas in the earlier petition, it was stated that the deceased had come home to look after his father and after his father fell ill he went to the road, met the driver, took a lift in the truck to get medicines for his father, in the second petition, which was filed later it was stated that he had hired the truck for carriage of garlic. The claimants may be poor, illiterate persons, but what is shocking and surprising is that the same counsel Mr. Jashim Uddin, Advocate, Sonamura filed both the claim petitions taking totally different stands. A lawyer is also an officer of the Court and is not expected to behave in such a manner. 6. I find that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the second version given of the truck being hired for carriage of garlic is a totally false version because in the first petition, which was filed, it was stated that the deceased was a private employee working as a driver in a rice mill. In the second petition, it was stated that it was a businessman buying and selling garlic. Even if the parents are illiterate, they would know what their son was doing. 7. As far as the compensation is concerned, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is very conservative. The deceased was only about 19-20 years old and he was working as a driver. His income has been taken at Rs.100/- per day or Rs.3,000/- per month. In my view, this is on the lower side, but even if the income was taken at Rs.3,000/- per day, 50% had to be added to the income for purposes of future prospect and therefore, the monthly income would be Rs.4,500/-. 50% is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased which leaves the dependency at 2,250/- per month or Rs. 27,000/- per year and since the deceased was only 19 years old, the multiplier should be 18 and the compensation works out to Rs.4,86,000/-. 50% is deducted for the personal expenses of the deceased which leaves the dependency at 2,250/- per month or Rs. 27,000/- per year and since the deceased was only 19 years old, the multiplier should be 18 and the compensation works out to Rs.4,86,000/-. In addition thereto, the mother is awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of her son and another Rs.14,000/- are awarded for funeral expenses. Therefore, the total award works out to Rs.5,50,000/- (Rs.4,86,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.14,000/-). 8. In view of the above discussion, I partly allow the appeal and the award of the learned Tribunal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,71,000/- to Rs.5,50,000/-, i.e. by Rs.3,79,000/- (Rupees Three lacs seventy nine thousand). On this amount, the claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till payment of the amount. The owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay the amount and the insurance company is not liable to pay the same. 9. Notice be sent to Mr. Jashim Uddin, Advocate, Sonamura to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the Bar Council of Tripura for initiating disciplinary proceedings. 10. Send down the LCRs forthwith.