JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. 1. The Insurance Company as well as the claimant have filed the appeal and cross-objections, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 7th November 2007, made in MVC No. 434/2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). 2. MFA No. 1616/2008 is filed by the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, being aggrieved by fastening the liability on them to compensate the claimant, whereas the Cross-objections is filed by the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries she has sustained in the road traffic accident. 3. The claimant filed the claim petition contending that on 6-6-2004 while she was travelling along with the goods in a lorry bearing registration No. KA-39/A-9745 while she was getting down near Konderayanapalli Gate on Sedam-Kodangal main road, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle negligently. Due to that, the claimant fell down from the lorry and the rear wheel of the lorry ran over the claimant's leg, due to which, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Initially she had taken treatment in the Government General Hospital at Gulbarga and thereafter she had taken treatment in a private hospital. Prior to the accident, she was working as a tailor and also working in a hotel and earning a sum of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. in view of the injuries and fracture she has sustained in the accident, she cannot work as a tailor as she was doing earlier and sought for compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/-. 4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the second respondent was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The third respondent/Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess the valid and effective Driving License at the time of accident. The offending vehicle is not insured with them. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claim made by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The claim petition as against the first respondent/driver of the lorry was dismissed as not pressed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The claim petition as against the first respondent/driver of the lorry was dismissed as not pressed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant in order to prove her case got examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P10. She also examined the Doctor who treated her as P.W. 2. On behalf of the third respondent, an Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W. 1 and the insurance policy of the lorry was marked as Ex. R1. 7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and after considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the accident had occurred, due to which the claimant fell down from the lorry and rear wheel of the lorry ran over claimant's leg and hence the claimant is entitled for compensation. The actionable negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The third respondent in the claim petition being the Insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 8. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant had sustained 6 injuries and fracture of left femur. Initially she had taken treatment in the Government Hospital from 6-6-2004 to 7-6-2004 and thereafter she had taken treatment in a private hospital. The Doctor who had issued disability certificate assessed the disability to an extent of 50% to the lower limb and the left leg is shortened by 2 inches. The Doctor assessed the disability to an extent of 25% to the whole body. Though the claimant claims that she was earning Rs. 3,500/- p.m., by working as a tailor as well as in a hotel, no document has been produced to substantiate the said contention. In view of that the Tribunal has taken income of the claimant as Rs. 80/- per day. Since the claimant was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal has taken the appropriate multiplier of 16 and considering the permanent disability to the whole body to the extent of 8% awarded a sum of Rs. 36,864/- towards loss of future earnings; Rs. 80/- per day. Since the claimant was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident, the Tribunal has taken the appropriate multiplier of 16 and considering the permanent disability to the whole body to the extent of 8% awarded a sum of Rs. 36,864/- towards loss of future earnings; Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs. 5,000/- towards amenities. In all, a sum of Rs. 56,864/- which was rounded off to Rs. 57,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to compensate the claimant. The appellant/Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has filed MFA No. 1616/2008. The claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation filed MFA cross-objection No. 1023/2009. 9. Sri. S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimant is contrary to law. The claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle as an unauthorised passenger. Hence, she is not entitled for compensation. The second respondent has violated the conditions of the policy. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. 10. On the other hand, Sri. Amith Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that, while she was getting down from the lorry on Sedam-Kodangal road, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle negligently, due to which she fell down from the lorry and the rear wheel ran over on her left leg. The accident had not occurred while she was travelling in a goods vehicle, whereas, on that day she was travelling along with the goods in the said lorry. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the claimant is on the lower side and also the income of Rs. 80/- per day taken by the Tribunal is contrary to law. Even the daily wage employees working in a Government Department would earn Rs. 100/- per day at the relevant point of time. In the instant case, the claimant was working as a tailor and she cannot be treated as a daily wager and hence taking the income Rs. 80/- per day is contrary to law. Further the compensation awarded towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities is on the lower side. 100/- per day at the relevant point of time. In the instant case, the claimant was working as a tailor and she cannot be treated as a daily wager and hence taking the income Rs. 80/- per day is contrary to law. Further the compensation awarded towards pain and sufferings and loss of amenities is on the lower side. In the accident, she has sustained fracture of left femur and left leg is shortened by 2 inches. Hence sought for enhancement of compensation. 11. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 12. The records clearly disclose that on 6-6-2004, while the claimant was getting from the offending lorry, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle negligently. In view of that, she fell down from the lorry and rear wheel of the offending vehicle ran over her left leg and she has sustained injuries due to the falling down from the lorry, whereby the rear wheel of the lorry ran over her leg. The accident did not occur while she was travelling in a goods vehicle. The police have registered a case against the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal has given a finding that the actionable negligence is on the part of the driver of the lorry. Hence, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the claimant was travelling as an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle and they are not liable to compensate the claimant cannot be acceptable on the other hand, they are liable to compensate the claimant. 13. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained is on the lower side. Apart from six injuries, she has sustained fracture of left femur and left leg is shortened by 2 inches. The income of Rs. 80/- taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Taking the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,500/- p.m., and disability to an extent of 8% to the whole body and applying multiplier 16, since the claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, the claimant is entitled to sum of Rs. 53,760/- towards loss of future earning. A sum of 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the lower side. 53,760/- towards loss of future earning. A sum of 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the lower side. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimant, she is entitled to another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities is also on the lower side. The claimant has to lead her remaining life with 8% disability and shortening of left leg by 2 inches. Hence, she is entitled another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 88,760/- as against Rs. 57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER MFA No. 1616/2008 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed. MFA Crob. No. 1023/2009 filed by the claimant is partly allowed. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 88,760/- which is rounded off to Rs. 89,000/- as against Rs. 57,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The amount in deposit before this Court is directed to be transferred to the MACT, Gulbarga.