JUDGMENT M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant-Insurance Company preferred MFA No.24728/2010 aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 4/6/2010 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT, Gogak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') partly allowing MVC No.578/2009 in favour of the claimant and awarding compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- with interest on Rs.4,19,000/- @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization from the owner and the insurer jointly and severally and also directing the insurer, i.e. the present appellant to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order. 2. Mfa No.22709/2010 is preferred by the claimant before the Tribunal, claiming enhancement of the compensation upto Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant/Insurer Sri. S. S.Beturmath and Sri. Bahubali N.Kanabargi, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/Claimant. 4. Parties are referred to as per their rank assigned to them before the trial Court. 5. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Appellant-Claimant in MFA No.22709/2010 has filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that had occurred on 21/2/2009 at about 11.00 hours while he was working as a coolie in the tractor bearing registration No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to the trailer bearing registration No.KA-49/T-2552 and proceeding in the trailer for the purpose of loading and unloading the Maize. It is stated that when the claimant was proceeding in the tractor-trailer towards the land belonging to Beerappa Hatti's to one Kotur's land in Chikkanadni village, the tractor was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and as a result, the claimant who was sitting in the trailer jumped out and fell on the road. In the meantime, the wheel of the trailer ran over the claimant, as a result of which he sustained fractures and other injuries. Immediately after the incident, he was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Patagundi and thereafter, to Dr.M.G. Umarani's hospital at Gokak, where he was admitted as inpatient and took treatment till the date of filing of the petition i.e. 30/3/2009. The doctor had advised him to take bed rest for two months and also suggested that he may requires Rs.1,50,000/- as future medical expenses. 6. Patagundi and thereafter, to Dr.M.G. Umarani's hospital at Gokak, where he was admitted as inpatient and took treatment till the date of filing of the petition i.e. 30/3/2009. The doctor had advised him to take bed rest for two months and also suggested that he may requires Rs.1,50,000/- as future medical expenses. 6. It was stated that prior to the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and he was doing agricultural coolie work and earning more than Rs.5,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent physical disability and he is not in a position to earn his livelihood. He being the only earning member in his family, the claimant is suffering untold hardship. 7. It is contended by the claimant that the accident in question was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to trailer bearing No.KA-49/T-2552 which was owned by respondent No.1-owner and insured with respondent No.2-Insurer and therefore, both the respondents have jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant with interest at 18% p.a. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court were notified. The respondent No.1-owner has filed his objection by engaging a counsel, admitting that there was a road traffic accident as stated by the claimant while he was working as a coolie in the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to the trailer bearing No.KA- 49/T-2552, but denied that the said road traffic accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver and also denied that the claimant had sustained any fracture and other grievous injuries. The contention of the claimant regarding taking the treatment at various hospitals and the allegation regarding the amount required towards medical expenses are also denied. 9. Respondent No.1 contended that if in case the claimant is entitled for any compensation, the same is to be paid by respondent No.2-Insurer, as the vehicle in question was insured with it and the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition against him. 10. Respondent No.2-Insurer has also appeared before the trial Court represented by its advocate and filed objection statement denying all the contentions of the claimant. It is stated that the amount claimed by the claimant is exorbitant and without any basis. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition against him. 10. Respondent No.2-Insurer has also appeared before the trial Court represented by its advocate and filed objection statement denying all the contentions of the claimant. It is stated that the amount claimed by the claimant is exorbitant and without any basis. The income alleged by him at Rs.5,000/- per month is also denied. The nature of accident as contended by the claimant was denied and the contention that he was traveling in the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to trailer bearing No.KA-49/T-2552 as coolie, that the driver of the vehicle was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner causing accident, the claimant falling down from the trailer and sustaining grievous injuries and taking treatment by spending huge amount, are all denied. It is also denied that the claimant had suffered any permanent disability or that he is not in a position to eakout his livelihood. 11. It is contended that the claimant was traveling in the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to trailer bearing No.KA-49/T-2552, which was used only for agricultural purpose, as gratuitous passenger. The owner of the tractor-trailer carried the passenger unauthorisly and thereby violated the condition of the policy. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the vehicular documents including policy details are not shared. Under such circumstances, respondent No.2 is compelled to deny the coverage of the insurance and the validity of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition against respondent No.2 12. The claimant before the trial Court has examined PWs.-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 177 in support of his contention. Respondents have not led any evidence in support of their defence. Respondent No.2 got marked the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1 with consent. 13. The tribunal after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the petition is liable to be allowed in part and proceeded to pass the impugned order awarding compensation in favour of the claimant against the insured and the insurer jointly and severally. 14. 13. The tribunal after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the petition is liable to be allowed in part and proceeded to pass the impugned order awarding compensation in favour of the claimant against the insured and the insurer jointly and severally. 14. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court, respondent No.2-Insurance Company has preferred MFA No.24728/2010 on the following grounds: The impugned Judgement and award passed by the tribunal is illegal, perverse and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment fixing the liability on the Insurance Company is contrary to the well settled preposition of law as held in 2008 SAR (civil) 69 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the person traveling in the trailer attached to the tractor. 15. It is contended that the claimant was traveling as an unauthorized passenger in the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to the trailer bearing No.KA-49/T-2552 and therefore, the liability to pay any compensation should have been fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle. It is also contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is also on higher side. The tribunal has ignored the evidence led by the claimant. PW-2 the Doctor had in clear terms stated that the claimant has already recovered. Therefore, the Insurer prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award and to dismiss the claim petition against it. 16. The respondents herein were notified. Learned Advocate for the Insurer Sri.S.S.Beturmath and Sri. Bahubali N.Kanabargi, learned Advocate for the claimants have addressed their arguments. 17. I have gone through the materials placed before the court including the TCR. The tribunal after appreciating the materials on record held that the claimant is successful in proving that he was traveling in the tractor on the date of incident and that there was a road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by its driver. It is held that the claimant has also proved that he had sustained injures as a result of the accident and had taken treatment. It is held that the claimant has also proved that he had sustained injures as a result of the accident and had taken treatment. Considering various decisions rendered by this Court earlier, the tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for the following amount as compensation:- Towards Pain and agony 35,000.00 Towards medical expense 1,75,000.00 Towards nutrition and other incidental expenses (awarded by the Tribunal ) 15,000.00 Loss of income during laid up period 18,000.00 Attendant charges 18,000.00 Loss of future earning 1,58,000/- Future medical expenses 70,000/- Total 4,29,000.00 18. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation with interest @ 6% per annum. It is held that owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order. 19. The learned advocate for appellant/insurer in MFA No.24728/2010 submitted that the tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on it. It is submitted that since the claimant was traveling as unauthorised passenger in the tractor and trailer, the insurance company should have been exonerated from its liability. 20. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the claimant submitted that the claimant has proved that he was traveling in the tractor-trailer as a coolie and that in view of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Maruthi and Others, (2011) 2 AIRKarR 141 liability of the insurer to pay the compensation to the coolies who were the employees carried in a goods vehicle, are held to be compulsorily covered under Section 147(1)(b) of the Act and therefore, the tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the liability on the insurer. It is contended that since the claimant was traveling as an employee of the owner of the tractortrailer, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. 21. I have gone through the decision in National Insurance Company Vs. Maruthi and Others (supra) wherein this Court after considering various aspects of the matter had held as under:- "31. By reading Sections 147 and 149, it is clear that the Legislative intent was that the insurer has to compulsorily cover all the risks arising out of an use of motor vehicle and the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that of insured. However, this is subject to the limitations envisaged under Section 147(1)(b). By reading Sections 147 and 149, it is clear that the Legislative intent was that the insurer has to compulsorily cover all the risks arising out of an use of motor vehicle and the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that of insured. However, this is subject to the limitations envisaged under Section 147(1)(b). It is also clear that the coolies who are employees carried in a goods vehicle are to be compulsorily covered under Section 147(1)(b) This Court further considering various types of motor Vehicles under the Act Motor Vehicle's Act held as under:- " Power tiller and tractor is mentioned at col.No.(vii) which is described as a transport vehicle. So far as agricultural tractor and power tiller, it is mentioned as non-transport vehicle. As per Section 41(4), every Certificate of Registration has to specify the types of motor vehicle as mentioned in Columns 1 and 2 of the table as the Central Government may declare depending upon the nature of the design, construction and use of the vehicle specified. 22. This Court specifically held that the combination of tractor-trailer is nothing short of a goods carriage and therefore, by virtue of Section 11-1(i) of fully worded policy and also provision of Section 147, the claim of the claimant is covered. It is also held that the claimants were neither gratuitous passengers nor persons who were traveling in the tractor-trailer for the purpose other than the agricultural operations. Under such circumstances, it was held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 23. In the present case, the material placed before the Court discloses that the claimant was traveling in the tractor-trailer as a coolie for the purpose of loading and unloading the maize. The copy of the policy is marked as Ex.R1, where the risk of the employees along with the driver is covered. 24. I do not find any reason to form a different opinion which is against the decision referred to above. If the principles laid down by this Court in the above decision is applied, the tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in fastening the liability on the Insurer. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appeal in MFA No.24728/2010 is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 25. Now let me consider the appeal in MFA No.22709/2010 preferred by the claimant. 26. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appeal in MFA No.24728/2010 is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 25. Now let me consider the appeal in MFA No.22709/2010 preferred by the claimant. 26. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the trial Court has erred in determining the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-. Further he submitted that even though the Doctor who was examined before the Tribunal stated in clear terms that the claimant has suffered 100% disability, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 40% without any basis which has resulted in grave injustice to the claimant. He also submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads except under the head - medical expenses, are too meager, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal preferred by the claimants is to be allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant in the interest of justice. 27. Per contra, the learned advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the trial Court took all the materials on record and has rightly arrived at the figure and it is quite reasonable, since the accident is of the year 2009. Even though the medical evidence is to the effect that the claimant had suffered 100% disability to the hole body, the same cannot be accepted, in view of the nature of the injuries sustained and nature of the job the claimant was undertaking. He further submitted that under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted compensation to the maximum extent and therefore, the claim of the claimant to enhance the compensation is without merits. 28. I have considered the materials placed before the Tribunal for assessing the quantum of compensation. 29. The claimant before the Tribunal is said to be aged 55 years working as coolie and as per the Medico Legal certificate-Ex.P8 he had sustained following injures:- i) crush injury over the left lower limb, ii) fracture of right femur, iii) fracture of right Humors and all the three injuries are grievous in nature. 30. The certificate issued by the Doctor M.G.Umarani who was examined as PW-2, refers to the compound fracture suffered by the claimant and also follow up treatment taken by the claimant. 30. The certificate issued by the Doctor M.G.Umarani who was examined as PW-2, refers to the compound fracture suffered by the claimant and also follow up treatment taken by the claimant. She has assessed the permanent disability at 100% in relation to the whole body, basing her calculation on the clinical finding. However, the learned Advocate for the Insurer submitted that the disability referred to in Ex.P8 is only a functional disability. 31. On considering the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant and also taking into consideration the avocation of the claimant, definitely it cannot be said that the claimant has suffered 100% disability. It is not disputed that the claimant is in a position to do his daily activity without much difficulty, but still the percentage of disability taken into consideration by the Tribunal at 40% may be on little lower side. The earning capacity of the claimant must have been reduced due to the injuries suffered by him and definitely it must have resulted in reduction in his earnings from collie work. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the disability suffered by the claimant may be assessed at 50% to the whole body. 32. As per the medical records produced before the Court, the claimant was treated as inpatient from 22/2/2009 till 9/6/2009 and follow up treatments were taken at regular interval till December 2009. It is stated that the fractured bone was fixed with the implants which are not yet removed. If the claimant is desirous to remove the implant, one more surgery is required to be done. 33. If the judicial notice of the monthly income of an unskilled labourer like a coolie during 2009, as being taken into consideration before the Lok Adalath, the same will be at Rs.5,000/- per month. Even the learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company has not disputed this fact. Therefore it is clear that the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at a lesser rate. 34. Even the learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company has not disputed this fact. Therefore it is clear that the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at a lesser rate. 34. Even though the claimant took treatment for 12 days as per Exs.P.12 and 13 after suffering 3 grievous injuries as mentioned in Ex.P8, the tribunal assessed the compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of income during laid up period, towards nourishment and other incidental expenses, towards attendants charges, loss of future amenities, by taking into consideration the monthly income as Rs.3,000/- which has resulted in awarding lesser amount as compensation. However, it is not disputed that the claimant was aged about 55 years at the time of accident. Therefore, proper multiplier would be 11'. 35. In view of the discussion held above, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation determined by the Tribunal is not just and proper and the same is to be enhanced reasonably. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for the following amount as compensation:- Towards Pain and agony 75,000.00 Towards medical expenses 1,75,000.00 Towards nourishment and other incidental expenses 30,000.00 Loss of income during laid up period (for a period of six months) 30,000.00 Attendant charges (for a period of six months) 30,000.00 Loss of future earning (5000X12X11X50/100) 3,30,000/- Future medical expenses 25,000/- Loss of future amenities 75,000/- Total 7,70,000.00 36. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.7,70,000/- as against Rs.4,29,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,41,000/-. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.22709/2010 is partly allowed. Claimant in MFA No.22709/2010 is awarded additional compensation of Rs.3,41,000/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. MFA No.24728/2010 is dismissed as devoid of merits. The amount if any deposited before this Court by the insurer is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned. On deposit of the additional amount of compensation, the same is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records to the tribunal with copy of this Judgement.