JUDGMENT : N. SESHASAYEE, J. 1. The claimant who had suffered injury when on 10.2.2003, a goods carrier bearing registration No. TN 36-E 7754 in which he was travelling as a loadman and a bus belonging to respondent No. 2 collided on Gobi-Kunnathur Road in Erode District, has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The nature of injuries suffered by the appellant was such that his right hand was amputated. Seeking compensation on various heads, the claimant approached the MACT with a claim of Rs. 4,00,000 as against which Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 1,70,250 payable with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The Tribunal in its award has held that negligence of the driver of the goods carrier has resulted in the accident. As to the liability, the respondent No. 5 which is the insurance company of the goods carrier has taken up a plea before the Tribunal that there is no policy cover for the claimant and that the claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has accepted the plea of the insurance company and fastened liability only on respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who respectively are the driver and owner of the goods carrier in question. 2. Before this court, learned counsel for the appellant argued on the need to enhance compensation as well as the need to fasten liability on the insurance company of the goods carrier in which he travelled. 3. Before dealing with the specifics of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, a summary of the amount claimed under various heads and the amount awarded for each of them is tabulated below: Head Amount claimed Amount awarded Loss of earning from 10.2.2003 to 9.2.2004 at the rate of Rate of Rs.3,000 p.m. Rs.36,000 Rs.2,500 Transportation to hospital Rs.2,500 Rs.750 Extra nourishment Rs.15,000 Rs.2,000 Damage to clothing and articles Rs.500 - Doctor’s fee, hospital charges, medical expenses and attendant charge, etc. Rs.75,000 Rs.25,000 Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000 Rs.5,000 Permanent disability Rs.2,50,000 Rs.75,000 Loss of earning power Rs.1,50,000 Rs.60,000 Total Rs.6,29,000 Rs.1,70,250 (Claim restricted to Rs. 4,00,000) In determining the compensation payable on heads of pecuniary damages, the Tribunal notionally fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 1,500 whereas he claimed Rs. 3,000 per month. At the said rate it granted Rs. 2,500 as loss of earnings. 4,00,000) In determining the compensation payable on heads of pecuniary damages, the Tribunal notionally fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 1,500 whereas he claimed Rs. 3,000 per month. At the said rate it granted Rs. 2,500 as loss of earnings. 3.1 As to liability, the learned counsel argued that Exh. R1 is the insurance policy, which shows that premium has been received for two employees, that at the relevant time when the accident took place the appellant was travelling as a coolie accompanying the goods which included goats and their fodder. Additional premium will cover the liability of the claimant and he should be treated as a representative of the owner of the goods. 3.2 As to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel argued that the loss of limb which the claimant had suffered due to amputation of his right hand, PW 2, the doctor has assessed permanent disability at 80 per cent regarding which he has issued Exh. P11 certificate. He being a coolie, claimant has literally lost his ability to earn his livelihood. The Tribunal, in fitness of things, should have treated the disability that visited appellant as functional disability and should have opted for multiplier method and granted compensation for loss of earning power. In the process it also ought to have taken into consideration the future prospects of increase in income and hence the quality of living that appellant has lost for no fault of his. Here, compensating the permanent disability of the appellant with a paltry Rs. 75,000 is arbitrary and unconscionable. In fixing Rs. 60,000 as compensation for loss of earning power is irrational. On the heads of general or conventional damages too, the compensation fixed was unrealistic. Claimant was treated as an inpatient for 16 days, as could be gathered from Exh. P10, discharge summary, and considering the fact that he has lost a limb in amputation Rs. 5,000 that it had awarded for pain and suffering is unconscionably low. On the head for providing additional nourishment, it has provided only Rs. 2,000; for loss of amenities and other support it has provided nothing, contended the counsel. He relied on the authority in Divisional Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Mariyammal, 2015 CDJ MHC 1526. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, insurance company, contended that Exh. On the head for providing additional nourishment, it has provided only Rs. 2,000; for loss of amenities and other support it has provided nothing, contended the counsel. He relied on the authority in Divisional Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Mariyammal, 2015 CDJ MHC 1526. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, insurance company, contended that Exh. R1, policy, covered liability only for two employees of the owner of the vehicle and nowhere the claimant has pleaded that he was an employee of respondent No. 4 at that relevant time. His subsequent version while tendering evidence that he was working as a coolie under the respondent No. 4 is an improvement over his pleading and the same has been invented only with a view to fasten liability on the insurance company and nothing more. Besides, the vehicle involved in the accident is a mini door auto, where the seating capacity is only one whereas the claimant, in his deposition that he has tendered as PW 1, had stated that along with him five people travelled in the auto. This is far in excess of the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle. The respondent No. 4 too has remained ex parte and in fitness of things the Tribunal at least should have examined him as a court evidence. The Tribunal has justly and correctly held that the appellant was only a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and has justly and appropriately refused to impose liability on insurance company and hence the same deserves to be confirmed. On insurer's liability: 5. Exh. R1, policy, discloses that the goods carrier in question was insured to include two employees. If the vehicle had seating capacity for only one to travel (only the driver perhaps), as was argued by its counsel, why it received premium for two employees? Was the complainant an employee under the respondent No. 4? Here there is some variance in evidence. If he is treated as an employee of the owner of the vehicle then there is additional coverage for him. If he were to be treated as one who accompanied the goods on behalf of the owner of the goods, he must be considered as his representative, in which case there is a statutory cover under section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. If he were to be treated as one who accompanied the goods on behalf of the owner of the goods, he must be considered as his representative, in which case there is a statutory cover under section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the final analysis how does it matter whether he was an employee of the owner of the vehicle, or coolie of owner of goods? The insurance company can extricate itself from liability only if it could prove that the appellant had travelled as a passenger in a goods carrier and not one who accompanied goods loaded in the carrier. This it failed to achieve. Needless to state, that the respondent No. 5-insurer is as much liable as the owner of the vehicle. This point is decided in favour of the appellant. On quantum: 6. Here again the appellant was able to convince this court as to the need to enhance the compensation. Here is one who has lost his right hand, probably his working hand, and he is a coolie by occupation. What can he do to earn his livelihood? His is a case of functional disability, and after providing for a possibility of he engaging in some job, however remote that possibility might be, his disability is determined at 90 per cent. He was aged 45 years at the relevant time and the appropriate multiplier is 14. The Tribunal has determined his monthly income notionally at Rs. 1,500 which by year 2001 standards appears reasonable. On these parameters the value of loss of future earning capacity is determined at Rs. 2,26,800 (Rs. 1,500 x 12 x 14 x 90 per cent). In a situation such as where a victim has lost his hand, it would be highly difficult for him to resume earning within two or three months and hence the appellant is granted Rs. 15,000 (for ten months) for loss of earnings. For pain and suffering I find the compensation awarded unconscionably low and the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000. On other heads, the compensation awarded is retained. 15,000 (for ten months) for loss of earnings. For pain and suffering I find the compensation awarded unconscionably low and the same is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000. On other heads, the compensation awarded is retained. The table below provides in a nutshell the compensation payable to the appellant: Head Amount Loss of future earning capacity Rs.2,26,800 Loss of income for 10 months Rs.15,000 Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000 Transportation to hospital Rs.750 Extra nourishing Rs.2,000 Medical expenses Rs.25,000 Permanent disability Rs.75,000 Total Rs.4,44,550 To conclude, this appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,70,250 to Rs. 4,44,550, which the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to pay, less any amount already deposited with interest at 9 per cent within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, whereupon the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same forthwith. No costs. The appellant is directed to pay necessary court-fee on the enhanced portion of the award.