JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thiluvalli Complex, P.B. Road, Davangere and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 07.11.2014 passed in MVC No. 20/2012 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Ranebennur have filed these appeals. 2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 03.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m. near Kunchiganalu village on NH-4 in Chitradurga when the petitioner and others were proceeding in a lorry bearing No. KA-01/AA-2697 along with their flower bags, at that time the first respondent alleged to have driven his lorry bearing No. KA-06/B-2023 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life as a result of which the accident was occurred and the petitioner sustained grievous injury and was taken to Government hospital Chitradurga for first aid treatment and then shifted to S.S. Hospital, Davangere for further treatment wherein, he took treatment as a inpatient from 04.04.2011 till 23.05.2011 and underwent surgery. Claimant claims to have incurred more than Rs. 1,00,000/- for his treatment. It is further urged that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was earning more than Rs. 3,300/- per month by doing agriculture, but due to the impact of the accident, he alleged to have become permanently disabled. The accident in question was alleged to have been occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by respondent No. 1 and he being the driver, respondent No. 2 being the owner and respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the said vehicle all them are alleged to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The petitioner has further urged that in order to avoid further complications in the case, the driver, owner and insurer of the other lorry involved in the accident are arrayed as formal parties to the proceedings as respondent Nos. 4 to 6 respectively. Hence, the claimant has sought for a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the realization of the amount. 3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 remained ex-parte. 10,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the realization of the amount. 3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 remained ex-parte. All these contesting respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner with regard to the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver, the petitioner sustaining grievous injuries in the said accident, his incurring amount towards medical expenses, his earnings etc. , The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have however shifted their liability on the third respondent on the grounds that as on the date of the accident the policy issued to the offending vehicle by the third respondent was in force and that the driver had also a valid and effective driving license on the said day and hence, they have sought for dismissal of the petition as against them. The respondent No. 3 who is insurer of the offending lorry bearing No. KA-26/B-2023 has attributed the entire fault to the fourth respondent for causing the accident by his rash and negligent driving and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1 in causing the accident and it is contended that the charge sheet was also filed against the respondent No. 4 who has not challenged it and for these reasons, the respondent No. 3 has also sought for dismissal of the petition as against him. The respondent No. 6 who is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01/AA-2697 has also pleaded to discharge him from the liability mainly on the ground that on the date of the accident, the petitioner was traveling in the said vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and as such there is violation of conditions of policy by the owner, who had also entrusted the said lorry to the respondent No. 4, who was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive it and for all these reasons, the respondent No. 6 has also sought for dismissal of the petition as against him. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got marked 230 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.230. Per contra, the respondents both insurance companies got examined its witnesses as RWs. 1, 2 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.4. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,89,100/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are held jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner and the third respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount into the Court within one month from the date of this award. Dismissed the petition as against respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 5. The insurer Respondent No. 3 being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed MFA. No. 100166/2015 on the grounds that the tribunal committed an error in saddling the liability on the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company and the compensation awarded is against the II schedule under MV Act. 6. The claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed MFA. Crob. No. 100166/2015 on the grounds that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, wherein the rash and negligent driving by the driver and proof of mere involvement of the vehicles is sufficient. Therefore, the claimant being the 3rd party to both the insurers, the claimant can proceed against any one of the vehicles involved in the accident and moreover the claimant has not challenged any of the police records and further, the tribunal has awarded compensation under other heads on lower side. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. The short question which arise for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the insurer appellant has made out grounds for apportionment of liability between himself and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and whether the claimant has made out grounds for enhancement of the compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer submitted that the tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 having held that there is a negligence on the part of the respondent No. 4 in causing the accident and that the charge sheet was filed against respondent No. 4. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer submitted that the tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim petition against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 having held that there is a negligence on the part of the respondent No. 4 in causing the accident and that the charge sheet was filed against respondent No. 4. Therefore, it is necessary to apportion the liability between the appellant insurer and respondent No. 6 the other insurer to enable the claimant to recover the compensation from any of the insurers and in turn the concerned insurer to recover his share from the insured who satisfy the award. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that the petitioner was unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and respondent No. 6 is not liable to pay compensation and that the tribunal has properly dismissed claim petition against him. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the medical expenses as claimed by the claimant has to be allowed in excess of what is provided under schedule II of the motor vehicles Act. The learned counsel has relied on two judgments in support of his submission. 12. Admittedly the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.04.2011 at about 11.30 P.M. When himself and other were proceeding in lorry bearing No. KA-01/AA-2697 along with their f lower bags, respondent No. 1 drove a lorry bearing registration No. KA-06/B-2023 and dashed against the other lorry and caused the accident. Therefore, there was collision between two lorries and hence, the claimant has impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the both the vehicles as respondent No. 1 to 6. Since, the petition was filed under Section 163-A of MV Act there is no burden on the claimant to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the any of the vehicles but, the petitioner had to prove that he sustained injures due to the involvement of the above stated two vehicles. He has proved the same by producing Ex.P.1 to 7 documents. It is also admitted that charge sheet was filed against respondent No. 4 driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-01/AA-2697. He has proved the same by producing Ex.P.1 to 7 documents. It is also admitted that charge sheet was filed against respondent No. 4 driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-01/AA-2697. The tribunal has observed in para 7 of the judgment that the claimant being 3rd party to both the insurers respondent Nos.3 and 6, he can proceed against any one of the vehicles involved in the accident. Furthermore, none of the respondents have challenged any of the police records and therefore, the tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative. Having recorded the findings to this effect, the tribunal at the end of para No. 9 held that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation and claim petition against the respondent Nos.4 to 6 has to be dismissed, in spite of the fact that the charge sheet was filed against the fourth respondent. Now it is settled law that whenever there is a composite negligence or liability to pay the compensation is fastened on two insurance companies, the claimant is at liability to proceed against any one of the insurers to recover the entire compensation. However, it is necessary for the tribunal/Court to record a finding as to the apportionment of liability of the insurance company inter-se. In the present case, though the tribunal has held that the claimant can proceed against any of the insurance company to recover the compensation, the claim petition was dismissed against respondent No. 4 to 6. This finding is erroneous. The tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition against all the respondents and ought to have apportioned their liability so that the insurer who satisfy the award has a right to recover the remaining amount from the other insurer. The contention of the respondent No. 6 that the petitioner was unauthorized passenger in goods vehicle, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation cannot be accepted. The evidence on record goes to show that the petitioner was traveling in the insured vehicle along with f lower bags as owner of the goods. Moreover, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. Therefore, this contention of respondent No. 6 is liable to be rejected. The evidence on record goes to show that the petitioner was traveling in the insured vehicle along with f lower bags as owner of the goods. Moreover, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. Therefore, this contention of respondent No. 6 is liable to be rejected. Under these circumstances, considering the material on record that the accident occurred between the two vehicles, it is just and necessary to apportion the liability of both the insurers in the ration of 50:50 in order to enable claimant to recover the entire compensation from any one of the insurers and in turn the said insurer to recover the portion of the compensation from the other insurer. Accordingly, this court holds that the liability to pay compensation on respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on one hand and respondent Nos.4 to 6 on other hand is fixed in the ration of 50:50. 13. A claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act has to be disposed of by awarding compensation as provided in II schedule to MV Act and in the present case, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,15,000/- towards medical expenses, diet nourishment and attendant charges, which is in excess of Rs. 15,000/- as provided under the II schedule. Similarly compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of future income are awarded in excess of the amount mentioned in Schedule-II of MV Act. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant relying on the judgment in the case of Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Bangalore vs. Vijay Balshiram Walunji and Another, (2012) 1 AIR Kar 408 submitted that the tribunal can award the medical expense and under other heads in excess of the amount mentioned in the II schedule in a petition filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The Division Bench of this court at para 13 held as follows: 13. So far as point No. 2 is concerned, under the structured formula, the Court is empowered to award only Rs. 15,000/- as compensation under the head medical expenditure under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sapna's case cited supra had an occasion to consider the said provision and after considering the said provision in detail their Lordships have held that in appropriate cases, the Court can deviate and award excess compensation. 15,000/- as compensation under the head medical expenditure under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sapna's case cited supra had an occasion to consider the said provision and after considering the said provision in detail their Lordships have held that in appropriate cases, the Court can deviate and award excess compensation. Therefore, what is required to be considered in this case is whether the Court can deviate from the structured formula to consider the case of the claimants under the head medical expenditure in excess of Rs. 15,000/-. 15. Further in the case of Sri. R. Venkatesh S/o Late Ramappaa vs. Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture for Kolar in MFA No. 5442/2012, decided on 27.02.2015 relying on the judgment in the case of Sapna vs. Untied India Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2008) 7 SCC 613 and other cases it is held that the tribunal is required to determine the compensation. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in given cases the court may deviate from the structured formula provided in the II schedule. Considering the above referred judgment, it appears it is just and necessary to affirm the compensation awarded by the tribunal in excess of the amount mentioned in the II schedule so far as medical expenses is concerned. However, the claimant is not entitled for any enhancement in the compensation under other heads. The compensation awarded by the tribunal itself is in excess of what he is entitled for under the II schedule of the MV Act. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering at Rs. 50,000/- is not admissible under the II schedule, compensation towards grievous injuries would be only Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, compensation awarded towards pain and suffering in excess of Rs. 5,000/- is inadmissible thereby Rs. 45,000/- awarded under this head has to be reduced. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. This is also not admissible under II schedule and as such, the same has to be disallowed. Therefore, out of the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 2,89,100/- a sum of Rs. 60,000/- has to be deducted. Thereby, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,29,100/-. Under these circumstances, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA Crob. Therefore, out of the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 2,89,100/- a sum of Rs. 60,000/- has to be deducted. Thereby, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,29,100/-. Under these circumstances, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA Crob. No. 100082/2015 is dismissed and MFA No. 100166/2015 is allowed in part. Claimant is awarded compensation of Rs. 2,29,100/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition till its realization. The judgment and award dated 07.11.2014 passed in MVC No. 20/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Ranebennur, in so far as dismissing claim petition against Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is set aside. The liability to pay compensation between Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on one hand and Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on the other hand is fixed in the ratio of 50:50. Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 6 being insurers are directed to deposit compensation amount of their part before the Tribunal within eight weeks. The amount of compensation deposited in MFA No. 100166/2015 by the insurer shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith. The order with regard to deposit and disbursement shall be in terms of the order passed by the tribunal. Send the records to the concerned tribunal.