JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - Both these appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) have been filed against judgment dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). M.F.A.No.3283/2014 has been filed by the insurance company, whereas, M.F.A.No.7185/2014 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since, both the appeals arise from the same accident and same judgment passed by the Tribunal, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 12.07.2011, the claimant viz., Manohar V.S. was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA02-HK-2997. When he reached Devarahalli Gate, Kasaba Hobli, a Car bearing registration No.KA-34-M-92928 came from the opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and while taking over a KSRTC Bus came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore where he remained as an inpatient from 12.07.2011 to 16.7.2011 and again from 21.09.2011 to 26.9.2011 i.e., for a period of 11 days. The claimant was directed to take follow up treatment and two other operations were performed on the claimant for implants. 3. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 27 years and was working as a Welder with Tata Kirloskar Pvt. Ltd, Bidadi and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. It was also pleaded that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant has lost his source of income. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest. The respondent No.2 filed written statement, in which the averments made in the claim petition were denied. The date, time as well as the manner of accident was also denied. The age, occupation and income as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle was also denied. 4. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest. The respondent No.2 filed written statement, in which the averments made in the claim petition were denied. The date, time as well as the manner of accident was also denied. The age, occupation and income as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle was also denied. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and two other witnesses namely Dr.Krishna Prasad and Mayanna Gowda as PW2 and PW3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The respondents examined Dr.D.V.Channabasavaiah as RW1 and got marked document viz., Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, vide impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver, as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the insurance company as well as the claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that there was a delay of 1 day in lodging the complaint with the police authorities by the alleged eye witness viz., Guruswamy and aforesaid witness was not examined to prove the involvement of the insured car. It is also pointed out that claimant in his evidence did not mention the name of the complainant and from perusal of Ex.P4 i.e., wound certificate; it is evident that the injured himself appeared before medical officer of Tiptur Government Hospital. It is also pointed out that Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the claimant in his evidence had admitted that the number of the vehicle was not known to him. It is also urged that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of the Act by the insured and the investigating officer respectively. It was also argued that charge sheet (Ex.P5) was got prepared by the claimant in collusion with police authorities to implicate the insured vehicle. It is also urged that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that there was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of the Act by the insured and the investigating officer respectively. It was also argued that charge sheet (Ex.P5) was got prepared by the claimant in collusion with police authorities to implicate the insured vehicle. It is also contended that since, the insured had availed off the benefit under the ESI scheme and therefore, was not entitled for any compensation under Section 53 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act' for short). It is also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Dr.Krishna Prasad had not treated the claimant and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and is arbitrary. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that no evidence was led by the insurance company to prove the allegation that the charge sheet was got prepared by the claimant in collusion with the police authorities. It is pointed out that the owner of the offending car was not examined by the insurance company and the owner of the car did not deny the factum of accident. It is urged that since, after the accident the claimant had become unconscious there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report. It is also pointed out that Dr.Krishna Prasad has treated the claimant and the claimant has sustained permanent disability in respect of whole body to the extent of 45%. It is also argued that the claimant could not attend his duties for a period of 17 months and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.16,419/- and therefore, he is entitled to difference of amount between the amount paid to him under the ESI Act and the amount due to him as salary i.e., an amount of Rs.1,41,323/-. It is contended that the Tribunal did not consider the bills Ex.P8 produced by the claimant on account of expenses incurred by him on medical treatment. It is also submitted that the right of the claimant has become non functional and cannot be improved even after surgery. Therefore, the disability of the claimant has to be assessed at 100%. It is contended that the Tribunal did not consider the bills Ex.P8 produced by the claimant on account of expenses incurred by him on medical treatment. It is also submitted that the right of the claimant has become non functional and cannot be improved even after surgery. Therefore, the disability of the claimant has to be assessed at 100%. It is also submitted that the amount awarded to the claimant on account of pain and suffering, conveyance charges, loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospects have not been awarded. Therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Twin issues arise for consideration in these appeals viz., with regard to implication of the insured vehicle as well as the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, the claimant at the time of accident was aged about 27 years and was employed as Weldor in Toyota Kirloskar. It is also not in dispute that claimant used to earn a sum of Rs.16,419/- per month. From perusal of wound certificate Ex.P4, it is evident that the claimant has sustained five grievous injuries viz., fracture right shaft femur, fracture-right clavicle, fracture-right scapula, fracture-right 2nd meta tarsal and fracture-right great toe. 8. The Supreme Court in ' RAVI VS. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS, (2011) 4 SCC 693 has held that delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt the claimants case in genuine cases. It has further been held that in Indian conditions it is not expected that a person who would rush to police station after the accident and the treatment of the victim is given priority over lodging of the First Information Report. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, taking into account the fact that the injured had become unconscious after the accident, delay of one day by itself cannot be held sufficient to doubt the claim of the claimant. The Supreme Court in ' MANGAL RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO, (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that the proceeding under the Act has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and claimant is not required to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court in ' MANGAL RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO, (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that the proceeding under the Act has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and claimant is not required to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the claimant has placed on record the copy of the First Information Report, mahazar as well as the charge sheet. On the other hand, the respondent has not led any evidence to show that the insured vehicle was involved falsely in the accident. Therefore, in the state of evidence on record, it can safely be inferred that the insured vehicle was involved in the accident and the genuineness of the claim of the claimant cannot be doubted merely on the basis of delay of one day in lodging the First Information Report. 9. The claimant was unable to attend to his duties for a period from 12.07.2011 to 2.12.2012 i.e., approximately for a period of 17 months and on three occasions he was required to be admitted in the hospital. The claimant has admittedly, received a sum of Rs.1,37,500/- on account of ESI insurance. Therefore, he is entitled to balance of amount of Rs.1,41,323/- due to him on account of loss of salary during the laid off period. The claimant has produced the medical bills Ex.P8 for an amount of Rs.80,322/-, however, the aforesaid amount has not been awarded to him. The claimant is therefore entitled to the aforesaid amount as well. The claimant has continued in employment and therefore, it cannot be said that he has sustained any loss of future income. However, the fact remains that the claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 45% and mobility of his right hand is restricted, therefore, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of permanent disability and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of amenities. The claimant is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of nourishment and incidental expenses and taking into account the fact that the claimant was required to attend the hospital for follow up treatment after his discharge, we enhance the conveyance expenses from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The claimant has undergone two surgeries for removal of implants and reconstruction surgery with regard to revival of right hand. The claimant has undergone two surgeries for removal of implants and reconstruction surgery with regard to revival of right hand. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of pain and suffering. 10. So far as submission made by insurance company that in view of bar contained in Section 53 of the ESI Act, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation, suffice it to say that the aforesaid submission has to be stated to be rejected as Section 53 applies only in case where the injury is an employment injury. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record that the injury sustained by the claimant is an employment injury. Therefore, Section 53 of the ESI Act does not apply. The claimant is therefore, held entitled to compensation as follows: Sl.No. Compensation under different heads Amount in Rs. 1. permanent disability Rs.2,00,000/- 2. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Nourishment and incidental expenses Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Conveyance charges Rs.50,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid off period Rs.1,41,323/- 6. Medical expenses Rs.80,322/- 7. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.7,71,645/- Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal for disbursement to the claimant. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. In the result, the appeals are disposed of.