JUDGMENT : P.G.M. PATIL, J. 1. The insurer and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 09.09.2008 passed in MVC No.899/2003 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) and the Additional MACT, Ramadurga have filed these appeals. 2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 22.03.2003 at about 1.00 p.m. near Gavimath Cross on Lokapur-Bannur road, petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA- 29/K0-721 as pillion rider. Respondent No.1 was driving the motorcycle in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Dr. Udaya Naik Hospital, where he was treated for 3 days as inpatient and thereafter he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum for better treatment and was inpatient for 2 days. He has undergone surgery. Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. On account of injuries, he is not in a position to do the work and therefore he sought for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondents appeared before the Tribunal and have filed objections denying the allegation made in the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.2 has contended that the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle at the time of accident, therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation amount to him as he was a gratuitous passenger. The policy does not cover the risk of injured pillion rider. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. 6. In support of the claim, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to P9. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R1 to R3. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 8. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R1 to R3. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed MFA No.21201/2009 on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in not considering that the risk of the petitioner is not covered under the policy, as he was a pillion rider and fixing liability on the insurer is illegal and against the policy terms and conditions. 9. The accident took place on 22.03.2003 and the complaint was lodged on 24.03.2003 and therefore the Tribunal ought to have disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner. Therefore the liability saddled against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 10. The claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed MFA CROB. No.775/2011 for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has considered his income on the lower side and that the disability as per medical evidence of PW2 is 20% but the Tribunal has erroneously considered the same at 10% of the whole body. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer and the claimant. 12. A short question which arise for consideration before this Court is, as to whether the insurer has made out ground to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimant has made out ground for enhancement of the compensation. 13. The learned counsel for the insurer vehemently submitted that the case of claimant is doubtful that the alleged accident occurred on 22.03.2003. The claimant was admitted for the first time on 25.03.2003 in respect of fracture injuries. However the complaint was lodged on 20.04.2003 and further as per the M.V.I. report, no damage was caused to the vehicle. Therefore involvement of the vehicle is also doubtful. 14. Per contra learned counsel for the claimant submitted that delay in filing the complaint is not fatal which is settled principle of law. Further that the policy at Ex.R3 is a package policy and therefore it covers the risk of pillion rider. 15. Therefore involvement of the vehicle is also doubtful. 14. Per contra learned counsel for the claimant submitted that delay in filing the complaint is not fatal which is settled principle of law. Further that the policy at Ex.R3 is a package policy and therefore it covers the risk of pillion rider. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has considered the disability of the petitioner on lower side and that the income of the petitioner is also considered on a lower side. Therefore, it needs to be enhanced. 16. Sofaras the first contention of the insurer that the petitioner was a pillion rider and that the risk of the pillion rider is not covered under the insurance policy at Ex.R3 cannot be accepted. Ex.P3 is a package policy issued in respect of the offending motorcycle and therefore the risk of the pillion rider is covered under the said policy. Under these circumstances, the contention of the insurer cannot be accepted. 17. It is true that the alleged accident occurred on 22.03.2003. The injured claimant was admitted in KLE Hospital for the first time on 25.03.2003 with the history of R.T.A. of 2 days as can be seen from Ex.P4- Summary Sheet. 18. Petitioner has contended that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Dr. Udaya Naik Hospital, Mudhol. Thereafter, he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum. However, the petitioner has not obtained any document to show that he was treated in Dr. Udaya Naik Hospital, Mudhol. Ex.P4-Summery Sheet is issued by KLE Hospital in which it is stated that the claimant while he was admitted on 22.03.2003 has given history of accident 2 days back. There is no reason to discard this document on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any document of his treatment prior to 22.03.2003. So far as the filing of the complaint on 20.04.2003 is concerned, it is settled principle of law that delay in filing the complaint is not a ground to reject the claim petition. 19. On the other hand, respondent No.1 the rider of the motorcycle has pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC as can be seen from Ex.P3. 19. On the other hand, respondent No.1 the rider of the motorcycle has pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC as can be seen from Ex.P3. Evidence of RW1-official witness of respondent No.2 is not at all sufficient to prove that the accident in question did not occur and the vehicle as registered was not involved in the said accident and the petitioner did not sustain injury in the said accident. Respondent No.2 has not produced any evidence in support of these contentions. 20. Under these circumstances, this contention of the insurer that there is much doubt that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident cannot be accepted. 21. Therefore this Court holds that the insurer has failed to make out grounds for setting aside the liability saddled against him and therefore the appeal filed by the insurer is liable to be dismissed. 22. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the income of the petitioner is considered at Rs.100/- per day i.e. Rs.3,000/- p.m. which is on a lower side. The accident in question occurred on 22.03.2003 and the avocation is stated as an agriculturist. Considering the age, occupation of the petitioner and in view of the guidelines provided for the settlement of the cases before the Lok Adalat, it is just and necessary to consider the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,250/- p.m. for the purpose of assessment of compensation. 23. The Tribunal has considered permanent disability of 10% of the whole body considering the evidence of PW2. Admittedly, PW2 is not a treated Doctor from KLE Hospital. He has issued the disability certificate and has stated that the petitioner sustained fracture of 1/3rd shafts of the right tibia and right fibula and other injuries. 24. Under these circumstances, considering the disability of 10% of the whole body is proper and does not call for any interference. 25. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.40,700/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for attendant and other incidental charges which needs no interference. 26. On reassessment of the compensation considering the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,250/-p.m., the following just compensation is awarded: Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000.00 Medical Expenses Rs. 40,700.00 Attendant and other incidental charges Rs. 26. On reassessment of the compensation considering the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,250/-p.m., the following just compensation is awarded: Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000.00 Medical Expenses Rs. 40,700.00 Attendant and other incidental charges Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of future income due to disability (3250x12x15x10%) Rs. 58,500.00 Food and nourishment Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of income during laid up period (3200x2 months) Rs. 6,400.00 TOTAL Rs.1,50,600.00 27. Thus the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,50,600/- as against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,32,000/- . 28. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.21201/2009 is dismissed. MFA CROB. No.775/2011 is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Order as to deposit and disbursement as passed by the Tribunal holds good. The compensation amount deposited in MFA No.21201/2009 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.