JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal, they are heard together and are finally disposed of by this order. 2. The appeal in MFA.No.7362/2010 is filed by the claimant - appellant who is the injured seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the appeal in MFA.No.1827/2010 is filed by the appellant Insurer - IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the liability. By its judgment dated 19.12.2009 in MVC No.194/2008, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,42,200/- to the claimant - injured. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant has filed MFA No.7362/2010 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant - appellant in MFA No.7362/2010 as well as the learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.1827/2010 - Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment as well as the material on record. 4. The factual matrix is that on 5.2.2008 when the claimant was going on his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-11/5525 from Maddur towards Channasandra on Maddur Channasandra road slowly and cautiously, at about 10.20 a.m. in front of the land of one Lingegowda, a goods auto bearing Regn.No.KA- 09/A3100 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner had come from Channasandra side and dashed against his motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was admitted to Hospital and underwent treatment. He had sustained injuries over the right parieto occipital region, over the right leg on the anterior aspect, at the middle and other parts of the body and X-ray revealed Type III B compound fracture of both bones of the right leg, for which he underwent surgery and was fitted with implants. Prior to the accident, he was doing agriculture as well as a milk vending to eke out his livelihood. Since he was not able to perform his work as before, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 5. Prior to the accident, he was doing agriculture as well as a milk vending to eke out his livelihood. Since he was not able to perform his work as before, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 5. On receipt of notice, the owner of the offending goods auto - Respondent No.1 appeared and filed objection pleading ignorance about the alleged accident and further asserting that he had sold his goods vehicle during November 2007 itself to one Shivanna of Hullahalli and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition. The Insurer also filed its written statement denying the entire averments of the claim petition and contending that the owner of the goods vehicle had not at all informed about the said accident but however admitting the insurance policy issued to the offending vehicle. Therefore, the liability was subject to terms and conditions of the policy and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending goods auto and hence proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,42,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appellant - injured has filed MFA No.7362/2010 seeking for enhancement of compensation and the Insurance Company has filed MFA No.1827/2010 seeking to exonerate the Insurer of its liability. 6. Learned counsel for appellant in MFA No.1827/2010 - Insurer contends that the Tribunal committed grave error in law and facts in making the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that the vehicle involved in the accident was a transport vehicle and the driver was expected to have possessed a Transport Endorsement as mandated under Section 3 of the MV Act. Though the driver had no valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, he contends that his appeal be allowed and the liability be fastened on the owner of the Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant in MFA No.7362/2010 contends that the question as regards absence of Transport Endorsement is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., (2017) 14 SCC 663 . 7. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant in MFA No.7362/2010 contends that the question as regards absence of Transport Endorsement is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., (2017) 14 SCC 663 . Hence, he contends that there is no fault in the Tribunal directing the Insurer to deposit the compensation amount. As regards the question of enhancement of compensation, the learned counsel contends that in view of the accident, the claimant sustained Type III B Compound fracture of both bones of right leg and was operated with open reduction and internal fixation with interlocking IM nailing. In spite of the said treatment, he had infective non-union of both bones of right leg and hence PW-2 Doctor opined that he suffered disability to his right lower limb to an extent of 60 to 65%. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the Tribunal has erred in taking his whole body disability at just 10% in order to compute the compensation towards 'Loss of future earning capacity'. Further, though he was an agriculturist as well as a milk vendor, the Tribunal erred in taking his income at just Rs.3,000/- per month for an accident of the year 2008. The Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that even if considered that the claimant was a coolie, no coolie would be available for just Rs.100/- per day. Hence, the learned counsel contends that his income be considered at Rs.150/- per day and compensation awarded accordingly. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the compensation towards 'Pain and suffering', 'Loss of income during treatment period', 'Loss of amenities' are also granted by the Tribunal on a lower side. The learned counsel contends that the claimant suffered permanent physical disability and has to walk limping throughout his life and has undergone much pain and mental agony besides affecting his future happiness and comforts. Hence, the learned counsel contends that taking into consideration these aspects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be enhanced by this Court suitably. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the accident being of the year 2008, the income of the appellant ought to have been taken at Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.3,000/- adopted by the Tribunal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the accident being of the year 2008, the income of the appellant ought to have been taken at Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.3,000/- adopted by the Tribunal. Hence, the notional income of the claimant - appellant in MFA No.7362/2010 is hereby taken at Rs.4,500/- to compute the compensation towards 'Loss of income due to permanent disability'. Further, I find that the Tribunal has erred in taking his whole body disability at 10%. Since PW-2 Doctor has opined that he suffered disability to his right lower limb to an extent of 60 to 65%, I hereby assess his whole body disability at 20% instead of 10% adopted by the Tribunal. Hence, with the income at Rs.4,500/- and multiplier 12' and disability at 20%, the compensation towards 'Loss of future income due to disability' would come to Rs.1,29,600/- (4500 x 12 x 12 x 20/100) as against Rs.86,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the compensation towards 'Loss of income during laid up period' would come to Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4500/- x 3) as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is hereby enhanced towards 'Pain and suffering' and a sum of another Rs.10,000/- is enhanced towards 'Loss of amenities'. Hence, the enhanced compensation would totally come to Rs.1,10,900/-. However, the compensation granted by the Tribunal in respect of the other heads remains unaltered. 9. In so far as the liability aspect is concerned, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., (2017) 14 SCC 663 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has answered the question against the insurer and in favour of the claimant holding that the insurer cannot avoid liability only on the ground of absence of Transport Endorsement, therefore, the issue is no longer res integra. Hence, there is no fault in the Tribunal directing the Insurer to deposit the compensation amount. Hence, the appeal in MFA 1827/2010 filed by the Insurance Company requires to be dismissed. 10. 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 enhanced by this Court Total Pain and suffering 30,000 10,000 40,000 Medical expenses 40,000 Nil 40,000 Loss of income during laid up period 9,000 4,500 13,500 Attendant charges, special diet, transportation, etc. 10. 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 enhanced by this Court Total Pain and suffering 30,000 10,000 40,000 Medical expenses 40,000 Nil 40,000 Loss of income during laid up period 9,000 4,500 13,500 Attendant charges, special diet, transportation, etc. 10,000 Nil 10,000 Loss of amenities of life 10,000 10,000 20,000 Loss of future earning capacity due to disability 43,200 86,400 1,29,600 TOTAL 1,42,200 1,10,900 2,53,100 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.7362/2010 is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.194/2008 is hereby modified. The compensation payable to the appellant/claimant is enhanced from Rs.1,42,200/- to Rs.2,53,100/-. The total enhanced compensation would come to Rs.1,10,900/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Insurer - IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the appellant/claimant on proper identification. The amount already in deposit if any, shall be adjusted. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest is concerned, shall remain unaltered. The appeal in MFA No.1827/2010 filed by the Insurer is hereby dismissed. Office to draw the decree accordingly.