JUDGMENT : M. Venkata Ramana, J. The injured claimant is the appellant. On account of the injury suffered in a motor accident on 27.06.2003 at 2.00 a.m. near Gulladurthi village on Jammalamadugu-Koilkuntla road, when she was traveling in a jeep No. AP 21-VK-5244, she made this claim against the respondents 1 and 2. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending jeep and whereas the 2nd respondent is its insured. 2. The 2nd respondent alone contested the matter on the ground that there was violation of terms of insurance policy and therefore it is not liable to satisfy the claim of the appellant. It also contended that the offending jeep had no permit and that the person, who was driving the same, had no valid licence. It further contended that the appellant had no income as claimed her and that the claim excessive. 3. Before the Tribunal, basing on the pleadings, the following issues were settled: "1. Whether the accident occurred on 27-6-2003 at about 2 A.M. was due to rash or negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP 21-V5244 by its driver belonging to the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as claimed, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief?" 4. Basing on the testimony of the appellant as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A5 filed by her as well as the evidence let in on behalf of the second respondent through one of its officers as well as Exs.B1 and B2, the tribunal awarded Rs.57,300/-, in all, towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% thereon from the date of the petition till realization. 5. Dissatisfied with this award, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal did not consider the income of the appellant properly nor effect of the injuries suffered by her, which she has to endure throughout her life as well as extent of disability suffered. Further assailing as to monthly income considered of the appellant, it is requested to enhance the compensation. 7. None represented the 2nd respondent in this appeal either this day or earlier on 24.01.2020, when arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellant, including on 07.02.2020 as well as 10.02.2020. 8. Now, the point for determination is-whether the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation as sought? 7. None represented the 2nd respondent in this appeal either this day or earlier on 24.01.2020, when arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellant, including on 07.02.2020 as well as 10.02.2020. 8. Now, the point for determination is-whether the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation as sought? POINT:- 9. The 2nd respondent did not prefer any appeal or cross-objections questioning the award passed by the Tribunal. The basis for laying this claim is rash and negligence attributed to the driver of the offending jeep. But, it remained unquestioned. It is not necessary now to consider such question, particularly, having regard to this appeal when preferred by the claimant. 10. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending jeep and whereas, it was insured with the 2nd respondent on the date of the accident as per Ex.B3 copy of insurance policy. 11. The appellant is a house wife. The tribunal accepted her claim that she was 34 years old on the date of the accident and basing on the material, the same has to be confirmed. The appellant claimed her earnings at Rs.3,000/- per month as a housewife. The Tribunal considered it at Rs.1,500/- per month. However, there cannot be any justification to reduce the income of a housewife particularly having regard to onerous responsibilities a house maker has to carry on. In fact, the claim of the petitioner itself on this score appears to be on low side. 12. Basing on the testimony of P.W.1, who is none other than the appellant, having regard to the services she renders in the family for the purpose of house hold, if it is considered at Rs.3,000/- per month as claimed, it appears just and proper. 13. The appellant claimed the compensation towards special damages and general damages in column No.25 of the claim petition as under:- "25. Amount of compensation claimed Rs. 1,50,000-00 I. FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES : (a) Loss of earning till the date of petition Rs. 10,000-00 (b) Medical and attendants' travelling expenses Rs. 15,000-00 II. FOR GENERAL DAMAGES: (a) Compensation for pain and suffering and loss expectation of life and loss of amenities of life Rs. 40,000-00 (b) compensation for consortium (c) Compensation for future loss of earnings. Rs. 85,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 1,50,000-00" 14. 10,000-00 (b) Medical and attendants' travelling expenses Rs. 15,000-00 II. FOR GENERAL DAMAGES: (a) Compensation for pain and suffering and loss expectation of life and loss of amenities of life Rs. 40,000-00 (b) compensation for consortium (c) Compensation for future loss of earnings. Rs. 85,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 1,50,000-00" 14. Loss of earnings was considered by the Tribunal, having regard to the nature of injury suffered by the appellant for a period of three months. In this context, it is desirable to note the injuries suffered by the appellant, which are stated in para-9 of the award of the tribunal. "1. Punctured injury 5 Cms. above the right knee. Fracture of femur. 2. Crackling sound and tenderness on right scapular area" 15. Ex.A2-Wound certificate, as well as Ex.A3-discharge summary were considered by the Tribunal in this respect. The evidence of the appellant itself makes out that she had treatment in Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where she underwent surgery and nail was fixed to her leg on 07.07.2003. She was treated in that hospital from 27.06.2003 to 23.07.2003. Ex.A3 further makes out that she was advised to attend follow up, which she did. This factor makes out that she was on continuous medication, after discharge from the hospital. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by her as well as age, due allowance has to be made for the effect of this injury, which the appellant has to endure throughout her life. Unfortunately in this case, the appellant did not examine the doctor, who treated her or in respect of disability. 16. Ex.A5 is the disability certificate produced by the appellant at the trial, which is in respect of stiffness she is suffering at her right knee. Disability on account of it, was considered by the Medical Board, Kurnool at 15% as per entries in Ex.A5. The tribunal below, considering the nature of the fracture suffered by her and the treatment she had, scaled it down to 10%. Even this scaling is unwarranted, in as much as the tribunal itself held that Ex.A5 is an authenticated record and in the absence of any material. Thus, 15% disability as stated in Ex.A5 has to be considered. 17. It is against this backdrop, having regard to the situation of the appellant in such a manner post-surgery/treatment, her claim has to be considered. 18. Thus, 15% disability as stated in Ex.A5 has to be considered. 17. It is against this backdrop, having regard to the situation of the appellant in such a manner post-surgery/treatment, her claim has to be considered. 18. Loss of earnings for a period of three months at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, shall make out Rs.9,000/- in all, opting the same yardstick applied by the tribunal. 19. Towards medial and attendant expenses as well as traveling expenses Rs.15,000/- is claimed. The tribunal awarded Rs.7,000/- under this head. Having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered, since possibility of continuous medication for few more months is seen, along with her visits to the hospital post-surgery, if Rs.15,000/- had been awarded as claimed it would have been appropriate. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- as claimed shall be awarded now. 20. The experience the appellant has to bear on account of the fracture particularly, when suffered to her right lower limb and also femur, shall be agonizing and painful. Even if there has been successful surgery, she has to bear with this discomfort throughout her life. Therefore, there cannot be any other factor than perception of nature of injury for the purpose of awarding compensation under this head. Therefore, if Rs.40,000/- as claimed by the appellant is awarded under this head than Rs.17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, it is just and appropriate. 21. With reference to the nature of injuries, the tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,000/- for the first injury being grievous and the second injury being simple in nature. This amount was considered as a part of the claim of the appellant, towards pain and suffering. 22. The effect of disability should also be considered in this respect at 15%. The Tribunal considered to award Rs.28,800/- under this head. It considered the income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/- per month and applying Table in Schedule-II of the M.V.Act then in vogue, multiplier 16' such amount was awarded. 23. In as much as income of the appellant is now considered at Rs.3,000/- per month, and the appellant being 34 years old, as held in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 3 ALD 83 multiplier 16' has to be considered. On such basis if effect of disability at 15% is considered, Rs.86,400/- has to be awarded under this head. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 3 ALD 83 multiplier 16' has to be considered. On such basis if effect of disability at 15% is considered, Rs.86,400/- has to be awarded under this head. This amount includes the effect of fracture as well as other simple injury suffered by the petitioner. 24. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,45,400/-(Rupees one lakh forty five thousand and four hundred only). 25. This is the just compensation, which the appellant is entitled for in proved facts and circumstances of the case in terms of Section 166 of the M.V.Act. Enhancement to this extent has to be ordered in this case. 26. The contention of the second respondent appears, as seen from the award is that, it is not liable to satisfy the claim of the appellant, since she was an unauthorized passenger in the offending jeep. The evidence shows that she along with other family members were returning from pilgrimage to Tirupati in the offending jeep, which was hired by her husband. Beng third party, she cannot be made to bear the effect of the terms of the insurance contract between the respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal was also conscious of this fact and relying on National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1 the 2nd respondent was directed to pay the awarded amount. 27. Considering the nature of this appeal only by the appellant/ claimant though the finding of the Tribunal in this respect, in the circumstances is not proper, when it has chosen to apply the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case, having regard to the limitations this Court can exercise in appeal, the same findings have to be confirmed. Apparently, the 2nd respondent is not dissatisfied with the finding so recorded by the Tribunal. 28. Thus this point is answered. 29. In the result, the MACMA is allowed in-part awarding Rs.1,45,400/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand and four hundred only) with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5 % p.a. thereon from the date of presentation of petition in the tribunal till realization against the respondents 1 and 2 joint and severally. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the tribunal below within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appellant is directed to open a Savings Bank Account in any of the nationalized bank near her place of residence, if she did not have one already. Upon deposit of the enhanced amount in the tribunal, by the 2nd respondent, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Advocate's fee in this appeal is Rs.10,000/-. As sequel thereto, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, shall stand vacated.