JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by MACT, Basavana Bagewadi by judgment and award dated 5-7-2010 passed in MVC No.07/2008 (old No.240/2008). 2. We have heard Sri Sudhir Singh R. Vijapur, learned Advocate appearing for appellant and Sri C.S. Kalaburagi, learned Advocate appearing for second respondent-insurer. First respondent-owner of the offending vehicle against whom liability has been fastened, though served, has remained absent and this Court by order dated 22-9-2014 has held service of notice on first respondent as sufficient. Records of the Tribunal have been secured and accident being of the year 2007, appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. Appellant herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.33 lakhs alleging that on 22-7-2007 while he was travelling in a Auto Cab from Nidagundi to Itagi with vegetables, it was driven in a cautious manner by its driver and at that point of time a Truck bearing registration No. KA-23/6386 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Auto-cab resulting in inmates of Auto-cab being thrown out and on account of said impact, claimant also fell down and sustained grievous injuries and as such, he had suffered permanent disability. Hence, he sought for payment of compensation of Rs.33 lakhs. 4. On service of notice, insurer appeared and filed statement of objections denying averments made in the claim petition except to the extent expressly admitted there under. It was specifically contended that driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, on the premise that there has been violation of policy condition, insurer sought to stave off its liability to indemnify the claim. First respondent - owner of the offending vehicle also appeared and filed statement of objections denying averments made in the claim petition and raised a plea that said vehicle was duly insured with second respondent and in the event of any compensation being awarded, liability should be indemnified by the insurer. Hence, insured - owner of the offending vehicle sought for dismissal of claim petition. 5. Hence, insured - owner of the offending vehicle sought for dismissal of claim petition. 5. Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed issues for its determination and one of the issue related to validity of the driving licence possessed by the driver of offending vehicle. On appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties, Tribunal, by its judgment and award under challenge allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.6,10,235/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit and absolved the insurer of its liability by dismissing claim petition against insurer on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle namely, driver of the Truck bearing Registration No. KA-23/6386 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. It is this judgment and award which is challenged in this appeal. 6. It is the contention of Sri Sudhir R. Vijapur, learned Advocate appearing for appellant that Tribunal committed a serious error in absolving the insurer of its liability to indemnify the claimant, inasmuch as, issuance of policy to the offending vehicle as per Ex.R-1 when not in dispute, insurer was liable to indemnify the insured by satisfying the award. Even otherwise, under the principle of 'pay and recover', insurer is liable to indemnify the claimant since he is a third party and same can be recovered from the insured namely, owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, he seeks for modification of judgment and award insofar as absolving the insurer of its liability to indemnify the claim. Elaborating his submission, he would also contend that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is abysmally on the lower side and seeks for enhancement of compensation. 7. Hence, he seeks for modification of judgment and award insofar as absolving the insurer of its liability to indemnify the claim. Elaborating his submission, he would also contend that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is abysmally on the lower side and seeks for enhancement of compensation. 7. Per contra, Sri C.S. Kalaburagi, learned Advocate appearing for second respondent-insurer would defend the judgment and award in question and contends that as on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and driving licence - Ex.R-2 produced before the Tribunal would clearly indicate that it was valid from 21-9-1999 to 20-9-2002 and it was renewed only on 10-5-2004 and was valid up to 9-5-2007 and the date of accident being 22-7-2007, insurer is not liable to indemnify the claim and this defence is available to the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly it has been received and accepted by the Tribunal and as such, he prays for confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, we notice that Tribunal has absolved the insurer to indemnify the claimant by answering additional issue No.1 in the affirmative after noticing that accident in question had occurred on 22-7-2007 and as on the said date, driver of the Truck namely, offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Driving licence which was possessed by him was for the period 10-5-2004 to 9-5-2007 and said licence having expired on 9-5-2007, was not renewed till 20-11-2009. In other words it has been held that driver did not have licence for the period 9-5-2007 to 20-11-2009. As per Central Motor Vehicles Rules, if a licencee applies for renewal of licence within 30 days from the date of its expiry and if for any reason, jurisdictional RTO does not renew the licence within the period prescribed and if such renewal is made after 30 days, such renewal would relate back to the date of filing of the application and it would enure to the benefit of the licencee. However, if the application for renewal itself is filed beyond the period of 30 days, licencee would not get a right to contend that his licence is to be treated as valid even for the period for which had lapsed. However, if the application for renewal itself is filed beyond the period of 30 days, licencee would not get a right to contend that his licence is to be treated as valid even for the period for which had lapsed. In the background of said statutory provision, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle which came to be produced and marked as Ex.R-2 had expired on 9-5-2007 and was renewed from 20-11-2009 up to 19-11-2012. Accident in question occurred on 22-7-2003 and as on said date he did not possess driving licence. No material was produced by he owner of the offending vehicle to establish or prove that application for renewal of licence was made within 30 days from the date of expiry of licence. As such, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in absolving the insurer of its liability to indemnify the claim or fastening liability on the owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation since there was violation of policy condition by the insured. In that view of the matter, contention of Mr. Sudhir Singh R. Vijapur, learned Advocate appearing for appellant that liability ought to have been fastened on the insurer cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 9. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, we find from the judgment and award in question Tribunal has awarded following compensation to the claimant: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1 Loss of future income due to disability 2,80,800/- 2 Loss of amenities in life, happiness and frustration 20,000/- 3 Conveyance, attendants charges, food and nourishment 20,000/- 4 Pain and suffering 40,000/- 5 Future medical expenses 30,000/- 6 Medical expenses 2,16,435/- 7 Loss of earning during treatment 3,000/- Total 6,10,235/- 10. Records secured from the Tribunal would disclose that as per Ex.P-102, right leg of the claimant above the knee came to be amputated. As per Ex.P-5 - wound certificate, claimant had sustained fracture of right leg at the centre of femur and there was restricted movement of hip joint and fracture was also seen at the right leg below the knee joint apart from lacerated wound on the right foot. As per Ex.P-5 - wound certificate, claimant had sustained fracture of right leg at the centre of femur and there was restricted movement of hip joint and fracture was also seen at the right leg below the knee joint apart from lacerated wound on the right foot. P.W.2-Doctor who has issued disability certificate - Ex.P-12 has not only reiterated contents of the wound certificate, but also opined that on account of amputation of right lower limb stump which is above the knee, claimant walks with the help of crutches and he has assessed the permanent disability to the lower limb at 85% to 90%. This fact was accepted by the Tribunal and it has considered the whole body disability at 60%. However, while computing compensation payable towards 'loss of future income-Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month which is marginally on the lower side. Consistently, this Court has held that for the accident which had occurred in the year 2007, in the absence of any cogent evidence available to establish actual income of the claimant, certain guess work has to be made based on the age and uncontroverted oral evidence and arrive at the probable income. Keeping this in mind, we are of the view that income of the claimant can be construed at Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, construing the income of claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month and adopting the multiplier of 13' and disability at 60% as assessed by Tribunal, compensation payable to claimant towards 'loss of future income- is being re-computed. 11. As could be seen from the medical records claimant has been admitted to different hospitals and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to District Hospital, Bijapur and after being administered first-aid, for higher treatment, he was admitted to Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre, NYT., Solapur and was an inpatient from 23-7-2007 to 2-8-2007 as evidenced from the discharge summary - Ex.P-109. Thereafter, he has taken treatment at Fracture and Orthopaedic Hospital P.G.I. of Swasthiyog Pratishthan, Miraj from 2-8-2007 to 23-8-2007 as per discharge card - Ex.P-102. Medical bills as per Exs.P-16 to P-101 would also evidence the fact that claimant had undergone surgery and was under medical treatment during the period July and August, 2007. Thereafter, he has taken treatment at Fracture and Orthopaedic Hospital P.G.I. of Swasthiyog Pratishthan, Miraj from 2-8-2007 to 23-8-2007 as per discharge card - Ex.P-102. Medical bills as per Exs.P-16 to P-101 would also evidence the fact that claimant had undergone surgery and was under medical treatment during the period July and August, 2007. Further, it is also to be noticed that on account of amputation of right leg above the knee, certain comforts in life would be lost to the claimant and as such, he requires to be awarded with just and reasonable compensation and on account of repeated surgeries being carried out, claimant would have suffered pain and agony and as such, claimants requires to be awarded some reasonable additional compensation under the head 'pain and suffering'. 12. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards 'loss of income' during laid up period i.e., for a period of one month. Nature of injuries and also period of treatment taken by the claimant as per the records would clearly go the show that claimant was bed ridden for more than 4 months. As such, for a period of six months, claimant would be entitled to compensation towards 'loss of income' during laid-up period at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. During the period of stay at the hospital claimant was inpatient and he would have spent amount towards his food and nourishment and his attendants would also have spent amounts for their transportation, food and lodging and as such, additional compensation deserves to be awarded under these heads. 13. In the light of discussion made herein-above, we are of the considered view that claimant would be entitled to additional compensation as under: Sl. No. Heads Amount Rs. 1 Loss of future income Rs. 4,000/- x 60% = Rs. 2,400/- Rs. 2,400/- x 12 x 13 = Rs. 3,74,400/- Less: awarded by Tribunal = Rs. 2,80,800/-Balance 93,600/- 2 Loss of amenities (Additional) 30,000/- 3 Pain and suffering (Additional) 35,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 4,000 x 6 = Rs. 24,000/- Less: awarded by Tribunal = Rs. 3,000/- Balance 21,000/- 5 Food, nourishment and conveyance 30,000/- Total 2,09,600 Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed in part. 4,000 x 6 = Rs. 24,000/- Less: awarded by Tribunal = Rs. 3,000/- Balance 21,000/- 5 Food, nourishment and conveyance 30,000/- Total 2,09,600 Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award passed by Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACTIX, Basavana Bagewadi in MVC No. 07/2008 (old No. 240/2008) dated 5-7-2010 is hereby modified and additional compensation of Rs. 2,09,600/- is hereby awarded to the claimant and same shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit. (iii) Judgment and award passed by Tribunal dismissing claim petition against second respondent-insurer stands affirmed. (iv) Order for fixed deposit and payment as made by the Tribunal will also hold good for enhanced or additional compensation also. (v) No order as to costs.