JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 21st February, 2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Mandi, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No. 58 of 2004, titled Desh Raj Sharma vs. Ram Pyari and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,44,000/, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the owner and the driver came to be saddled with the liability jointly and severally, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has questioned the impugned award by the medium of instant appeal on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. On the other hand, the legal representatives of the owner (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) have filed Cross Objections seeking exoneration and have prayed that the insurer be saddled with the liability. 3. The driver and the insurer have not challenged the impugned award on any ground, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28th October, 2003, at about 10 p.m., the claimant boarded Maruti Car bearing No. HP-22-5911, owned by respondent No.1 Ram Payari (since dead) and being driven by respondent No.2, from Karsog to Mandi. Further averred that when the said Car reached at Village Bagla, due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, the car hit with the rear portion of the truck going ahead, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, remained admitted there till 13th November, 2003, was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla where the claimant was operated upon for neck injury and was discharged on 3rd December, 2003. Thus, the claimant filed the claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The owner and the driver filed joint reply and resisted the claim petition. The insurer also filed reply and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of reply. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 24th August, 2015: “1. 5. The owner and the driver filed joint reply and resisted the claim petition. The insurer also filed reply and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of reply. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 24th August, 2015: “1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car No.HP-22-5911 on 28.10.2003 at place Bagla, being driven by respondent No.2 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3. 5. Relief.” 7. In support of his claim, the claimant examined Dr. Manoj Thakur as PW-1, ASI Joginder Pal as PW-2, Suresh Kumar from the office of S.P., Mandi, as PW-3, Dr. Renu Behal as PW-4, while he himself stepped into the witness box as PW-5. On the other hand, the insured/owner, the driver and the insurer have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant has remained un-rebutted. 8. The Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and the evidence, allowed the claim petition, vide the impugned award and saddled the owner and the driver with the liability. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, while the owner has laid challenge to the impugned award by filing cross objections. 10. Thus, following points arise for determination in the instant lis: (i) Whether the amount awarded is inadequate? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has fallen into an error in discharging the insurer form the liability and directing the owner/insured to satisfy the same? Point No. i 11. The claimant has examined PW-4 Dr. Renu Behal, Zonal Hospital, Mandi, who stated that the claimant suffered five injuries and that the injury in the neck was grievous in nature. PW-4 has proved on record the MLC Ext.PW-4/A. The claimant also examined Dr. Manoj Thakur, Associate Professor, Department of Orthopedics, IGMC, Shimla, who stated that he was one of the members of the Medical Board, which issued the disability certificate. PW-4 has proved on record the MLC Ext.PW-4/A. The claimant also examined Dr. Manoj Thakur, Associate Professor, Department of Orthopedics, IGMC, Shimla, who stated that he was one of the members of the Medical Board, which issued the disability certificate. The disability certificate has been proved on record as Ext.P-I. A perusal of the disability certificate Ext.P-1 does disclose that the claimant suffered 30% disability, which is permanent in nature and is in regard to the whole body. 12. Thus, this being an injury case, the compensation is to be assessed keeping in view the disability suffered by the claimant i.e. 30%. 13. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771, has clearly laid down the principles as to how compensation has to be awarded in cases where the claimants have suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 14. The Apex Court in its latest decision in Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his/her life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the whole life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the said decision hereunder: “11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 15. The claimant-injured was an Advocate by profession. The disability suffered by the claimant has shattered his physical frame and, in all probabilities, he would not be in a position to do the job of an Advocate, as he would have been doing prior to the accident. 16. It has been pleaded by the claimant in the Claim Petition that he, at the time of accident, was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 16. It has been pleaded by the claimant in the Claim Petition that he, at the time of accident, was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. No evidence has been led by the claimant in support of his assertion that he was earning Rs.20,000/- by practicing as an Advocate. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has fallen into an error in assessing the loss of earning capacity to the tune of only 10% in view of the fact that the claimant suffered 30% permanent disability in regard to whole body. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the claimant lost 20% earning capacity because of the disability suffered by him. Therefore, loss of earning capacity can roughly be said to be Rs.2,000/- per month. 17. The age of the claimant, at the time of accident, was 49 years. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 13 in view of 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, the Act) and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120. 18. Having said so, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.2,000 x 12 x 13 = Rs.3,12,000/- under the head loss of future earning capacity. 19. The accident had taken place on 28th October, 2003, the claimant remained admitted till 13th November, 2003 in Zonal Hospital, Mandi, from where was referred to IGMC, Shimla, was operated upon for neck injury and discharged from the hospital on 3rd December, 2003. The discharge certificate has been proved on record as Ext.P-2. Thus, the claimant remained admitted for over one month in the hospital. For recuperation, the claimant would have also remained out of profession after discharge from the hospital. Thus, such period, during which the claimant would have remained out of profession, including the period of hospitalization, can be said to be six months. 20. The income of the claimant has been assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.10,000/- x 6 = Rs.60,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning during treatment’. 21. Thus, such period, during which the claimant would have remained out of profession, including the period of hospitalization, can be said to be six months. 20. The income of the claimant has been assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.10,000/- x 6 = Rs.60,000/- under the head ‘loss of earning during treatment’. 21. Discussion in the preceding paragraphs shows that the claimant has suffered a lot and because of the disability suffered by him, has to struggle throughout his life. In the given circumstances, read with the law laid down by the Apex Court, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 22. Owing to the disability suffered by the claimant, he is deprived of all comforts and amenities of life. Therefore, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 23. The claimant would have also spent at least 100/- per day i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month on account of special diet during the period of treatment. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.3,000/- x 6 = Rs.18,000/- under the head ‘special diet’. 24. In order to prove the expenses incurred by the claimant for purchasing medicines etc., the claimant has only placed on record the photocopies of the medical bills, which have not been proved on record as per law. Therefore, keeping in view the injury sustained by the claimant, hypothetically, it can be said that the claimant would have spent Rs.20,000/- on medicines. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘medical expenses incurred’. 25. Keeping in view the expert evidence, the claimant has to undergo medical check-ups/treatment, at intervals, throughout his life and I deem it proper to award Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘future medical treatment’. 26. During the period of hospitalization and recovery i.e. six months, as has been discussed supra, the claimant would have needed special care and attendance, and would have hired attendant. The attendant charges at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, for six months, comes to Rs.18,000/- and the said amount is awarded in favour of the claimant under the head ‘attendant charges’. 27. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.3,000/- under the head ‘transportation charges’ and is maintained. 28. Having glance of the above discussion, the claimant is awarded Rs.5,41,000/- under different heads as given below: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. 27. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.3,000/- under the head ‘transportation charges’ and is maintained. 28. Having glance of the above discussion, the claimant is awarded Rs.5,41,000/- under different heads as given below: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of earning during treatment Rs.60,000/- 2. Loss of future income Rs.3,12,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs.18,000/- 6. Special diet Rs.18,000/- 7. Future medical treatment Rs.10,000/- 8. Medical expenses incurred Rs.20,000/- 9. Transportation charges Rs.3,000/- Total Rs.5,41,000/- 29. Point No. (i) is answered accordingly and the compensation is enhanced. Point No. ii 30. Factum of insurance is admitted. The claimant was traveling in the Maruti Car, thus, was an occupant and was third party. As per Insurance Policy Ext.RX, the seating capacity of the Maruti Car was 1+3, meaning thereby, the risk of the claimant, being an occupant/third party, is covered. 31. The mandate of Sections 146, 147 and 149 of the Act is to protect the rights of third parties and that is why, compulsory duty has been imposed upon the owners to get the vehicles insured, so that, claim of third parties cannot be defeated. 32. The same question arose before the Apex Court in a case titled as S. Iyyapan versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 . It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the judgment herein: "16. The heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks" given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force." 33. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a series of cases. 34. Onus to prove issues No.3 and 4 was on the claimant, has failed to discharge. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force." 33. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a series of cases. 34. Onus to prove issues No.3 and 4 was on the claimant, has failed to discharge. Accordingly, the said issues were decided against the insurer by the Tribunal. The insurer has failed to prove that the owner has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. The said findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been challenged by the insurer by filing an appeal or cross objections, thus have attained finality. 35. It is not out of place to mention that the Tribunal on one hand has decided issue No.3 against the insurer and held that the insured has not committed any willful breach of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, and on the other hand, has saddled the insured with the liability. 36. Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award is modified, the appeal filed by the claimant and the cross objections filed by the owner are allowed, as indicated above, and the insurer is saddled with the liability. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court, alongwith interest, as awarded by the Tribunal, within eight weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, through his bank account. The statutory amount deposited by the owner is also awarded as costs in favour of the claimant. The appeal and the cross objections stand disposed of accordingly.