JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. 1. Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and award rendered by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V, Chitradurga in MVC No. 301/2010. MFA No. 9067/2012 is filed by the insurance company challenging liability. MFA No. 3550/2013 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the appeals is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that on 26.09.2006 at 8.30 a.m. petitioner was waiting for bus along with goods at Muddapura gate in order to go to APMC, Chitradurga. At that time Goods auto bearing Regn. No. KA-17/TR-1796 came there and the petitioner boarded the said auto along with cotton bales. When the Auto Rickshaw was proceeding near Beeravara village, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations in a high speed. As a result of that, the auto capsized on the left side of road near Murarji Vidhaya Peetha Road cross, Beeravara village. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to District Hospital, Chitradurga and for better treatment referred to CG Hospital, Davanagere and Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere. He has spent huge amount towards his treatment. Prior to accident he was hale and healthy and he used to earn Rs. 1,50,000/- p.a. by doing agriculture work. Due to the accident, he has suffered disability and loss of earning capacity. On these grounds, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 4. Upon service of notice, respondent no. 2 entered appearance and filed objection statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. Respondent No. 1 remained absent and was placed ex-parte. 5. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. To prove and substantiate their case, petitioner got examined himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P56 and Exs.C1 and 2. On behalf of respondents, RW-1 was examined and EXs.R1 to R3 were got marked. After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. On behalf of respondents, RW-1 was examined and EXs.R1 to R3 were got marked. After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,06,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit. It is this judgment, which is under challenge in both the appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the judgment and award of the Tribunal in all probabilities is unsustainable either in law or on facts. Further, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The Tribunal has not considered the medical bills, treatment expenditure, disability aspect and loss of earnings and future income. Further, the Tribunal has also not considered the compensation in respect of food, nourishment and conveyance and also loss of earnings. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the claimant seeks for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal filed by him. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court and against the facts and materials available on record and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. The Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability on the insurance company without noticing that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the said commercial goods vehicle as on the date of accident. The driving licence possessed by him was in respect of non-transport autorickshaw cab as per Ex.R2 and not in respect of commercial autorickshaw goods vehicle which was involved in the accident. Further, he contends that as per the Driving Licence Clause in the said policy, the insured owner is required to entrust the vehicle in question to a person who holds effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. But the owner has consciously allowed such person who was not authorised to drive the insured vehicle on the date of alleged accident in question. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are on higher side and against the available materials on record. Hence, he sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company. 8. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are on higher side and against the available materials on record. Hence, he sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company. 8. In the context of the contentions as taken by learned counsel for the parties on both sides, it is relevant to state that the accident is not in dispute. In order to prove his claim, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and produced documents such as Ex.P1 - complaint, Ex.P2 - FIR, Ex.P3 - spot panchanama, Ex.P4 - IMV report, Ex.P5 - wound certificate, Ex.P6 - charge sheet. On the basis of these documents, the Tribunal held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver in driving the auto, the petitioner sustained injuries. 9. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate, Ex.P54 and 55 are the x-ray photos, Ex.C1 and 2 are case sheets. On perusal of these documents it shows that the petitioner has sustained injuries such as contusion over occipital region measuring 2 x ½ cms, abrasion over left knee measuring 2 x 2 cms, tenderness over the chest. The x-ray examination confirms fracture of 5th rib on the left side. He has taken treatment at various hospitals on different dates. 10. The petitioner contends that by doing agriculture work, he used to Rs. 1,50,000/- p.a. but no documentary evidence was produced in that regard. The accident is of the year 2006. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed his notional income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. 11. PW-2 Doctor has stated that on examination of the claimant, he found decreased range of motion, muscle strength of left hip and he was having difficulty in climbing stairs, sitting crossed leg, kneeling, squatting. The x-ray disclosed mal united fracture, inferior public ramus of both sides. He assessed the disability at 34% with respect of left lower limb and 8% to the whole body. The Tribunal on looking into the impact of the injury sustained, held that petitioner has suffered 5% of the disability. But having regard to the gravity of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the nature of treatment taken and so also, the evidence of Doctor in this regard, it is just and proper to take 8% as the disability suffered by the petitioner. But having regard to the gravity of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the nature of treatment taken and so also, the evidence of Doctor in this regard, it is just and proper to take 8% as the disability suffered by the petitioner. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of earnings due to disability would be Rs. 42,240/- (Rs. 4,000 x 12 x 11 x 8%) as against Rs. 26,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head loss of amenities appears to be on lower side. Hence, another sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded under this head. 12. The petitioner has taken treatment initially at District Hospital, Chitradurga and further, on 28.09.2006 to 10.10.2006 at Bapuji Hospital, and again at District Hospital, Chitradurga on 10.10.2006 till 17.10.2006. Keeping in view the period of hospitalization and due to the injuries as he could not attend his work during hospitalization, it would be just and proper to award Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. 13. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:- Particulars Compensation awarded by MACT Compensation by this Court Pain and suffering 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 20,000 20,000 Loss of earnings due to disability 26,400 42,240 Loss of amenities 10,000 25,000 Loss of future earning capacity due to disability --- 12,000 Total 1,06,400 1,49,240 Therefore, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,49,240/- as against Rs. 1,06,400/- and the enhanced compensation would be Rs. 42,840/-. 14. In so far as the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company that there is violation of policy condition as the driver did not possess the valid DL, cannot be accepted for the reason that though the insurance company has produced the D.L. extract as per Ex.R2, but however, has failed to examine the author of the said document i.e. the RTO Officer in this regard to prove its content. Even the insurance company has not summoned the owner nor the driver of the vehicle to produce the DL. Further, the Tribunal on evaluation of the documentary evidence on record has held that driver of the offending auto rickshaw was authorised to drive the said vehicle and he was allotted auto rickshaw cab PSV badge no. 6428 and was authorised to drive the vehicle upto 13.09.2013. Further, the Tribunal on evaluation of the documentary evidence on record has held that driver of the offending auto rickshaw was authorised to drive the said vehicle and he was allotted auto rickshaw cab PSV badge no. 6428 and was authorised to drive the vehicle upto 13.09.2013. Therefore, it was held that the driver of offending vehicle was holding valid DL at the time of incident and there was no violation of policy condition as alleged by the Insurance company. I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with this finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be rejected. 15. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: MFA No. 3550/2013 filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part. MFA No. 9067/2012 filed by the appellant/insurance company is rejected. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 42,840/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No. 301/2010 is modified accordingly. The insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation along with the enhanced compensation, with accrued interest before the tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw the decree accordingly.