JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - M.F.A. No.4694/2012 is filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mulbagal, as well as the liability imposed upon it to pay the compensation in MVC No.130/2009. 2. M.F.A. No.6937/2012 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mulbagal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity) in MVC No.130/2009. 3. For the sake of brevity and easy understanding, the parties shall be referred to as they were before the Tribunal. 4. The claim petition discloses that on 28.08.2005, the claimant and others were engaged by the owner of a Tractor-Trailer bearing registration Nos.KA- 07/T-5078 and KA-07/T-5079 to transport the stone slabs from a quarry. When the said Tractor Trailer reached Kolathur gate on NH-4 i.e., Chennai Bangalore road at about 2:15 p.m., the driver of the said Tractor Trailer lost control and the Tractor-Trailer toppled. The claimant sustained serious injuries on the forehead, right arm and cheek etc. and compound type-1 fracture of right middle 1/3rd of humerus with dislocation of the right side (closed) and contusion over the right ankle and other injuries. The claimant was treated by the Doctors at Bowring hospital and Lady Curzon hospital, Bangalore and also R.L. Jalappa hospital, Kolar. The claimant underwent a surgery on 01.09.2005 for the closed manipulation reduction under CRM. The claimant had undergone another surgery on 21.09.2005 for closed reduction and internal fixation with interlocking of the right humerus and was discharged on 06.10.2005. It is stated that a case in Crime No.465/2005 was registered against the driver of the Tractor Trailer for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. With the aforesaid contentions, the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. 5. The insurer denied the accident and also contended that the owner had violated the policy condition by allowing coolies to travel in the Tractor-Trailer and therefore, contended that it was not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and examined the Doctor, who treated the claimant, as PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P22. 6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and examined the Doctor, who treated the claimant, as PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P22. The insurer examined its officer as RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 and R2. 7. The Tribunal noticed from Ex.P4 wound certificate that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: a) Fracture of right elbow; b) deep closed on right eyebrow, irregular in shape 5 cms x 4 cms; c) Deep abrasion on right cheek; d) Deep closed on right foot ventral aspect; e) Fracture of metatarsal bone right side; The Tribunal also noticed the evidence of PW.2 Doctor, which indicated that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: 1. Multiple abrasions over right arm. 2. Right humerus fracture. 3. Right monteggics fracture dislocation. 4. Right ankle contusion. 5. Sutured worked over right cheek. 6. Sutured worked over right eyebrow. 7. Sub conjunctional haemorrhage. 8. Cut lacerated wound over dorsum of ankle. 8. Thus, having regard to the injuries sustained, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation: Heads under which compensation is awarded Amount (in Rupees) Pain and suffering 30,000/- Towards medical bills 16,701/- Permanent disability 61,200/- Loss of income 1,600/- Attendant charges 1,600/- Extra nutritious food 9,000/- Conveyance expenses 2,000/- Future medical expenses 10,000/- TOTAL 1,32,101/- The Tribunal noticed that the offending Tractor Trailer was covered by a Farmers Package Policy and in view of the evidence of PW.1, the Tribunal held that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, both the insurer and the claimants have presented the appeals referred to above. 10. The learned counsel for the insurer (appellant in MFA No.4694/2012) contended that the offending vehicle in question was covered by Farmers Package Policy while the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose, namely, to transport stone slabs from a quarry to a different place which was not the village of the owner. Therefore, the insurer contends that it is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation as determined by the Tribunal. He also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was one Mr. Vishwanatha and since he did not possess a licence to drive a Tractor- Trailer, another driver by name Mr.Srirama was implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the insurer brought to my notice the evidence of PW.1 wherein he had deposed that since Mr.Vishwanatha did not possess a licence, Mr. Vishwanatha and since he did not possess a licence to drive a Tractor- Trailer, another driver by name Mr.Srirama was implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the insurer brought to my notice the evidence of PW.1 wherein he had deposed that since Mr.Vishwanatha did not possess a licence, Mr. Sriram was implicated in the case. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the insurer to pay and recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In so far as the appeal for enhancement of compensation by the claimant is concerned, the claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the disability to whole body at 20% as deposed by PW.2 - Doctor and as per the disability certificate issued by him as per Ex.P21. Learned counsel for the claimant - appellant in MFA No.6937/2012 also brought to my notice the severity of the injuries sustained by the claimant and also contended that the injuries have resulted in a functional disability as the claimant was a manual labourer and therefore, he having lost strength in his hands would henceforth be unable to carry on the activity that he used to do earlier. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the functional disability of the claimant and that there was no reason whatsoever to justify that the claimant had suffered only 10% disability. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal had arbitrarily considered the disability at 10% without disclosing the reason for not accepting the evidence of PW.2. 12. I have perused the records of the Tribunal as well as the deposition of the parties. 13. It is noticed that the insurer though disputed the occurrence of the accident, when it filed its objections to the claim petition, it did not seriously contest the accident in the course of cross-examination of PW.1. It did not dispute that the vehicle in question was covered by Farmers package policy, which excluded the risk caused if the vehicle in question was used for commercial activities or for hire etc. It is relevant to note that PW.1 in his chief examination as well as in his cross-examination has specifically stated that the Tractor-Trailer was used for the purpose of transporting stone slabs from the stone quarry to the property of the owner for the purpose of constructing a cattle shed. It is relevant to note that PW.1 in his chief examination as well as in his cross-examination has specifically stated that the Tractor-Trailer was used for the purpose of transporting stone slabs from the stone quarry to the property of the owner for the purpose of constructing a cattle shed. The only contention urged by the insurer is that PW.1 deposed that the transportation of the stone slabs was from the quarry to Hosakote and therefore, contends that the Tractor-trailer was used for commercial purpose. Except this assumption of the insurer, there is nothing on record to show that the Tractor - Trailer was used for commercial purpose. On the other hand, evidence galore in the case which indicated that the Tractor-trailer was used for domestic purpose of the owner of the Tractor-trailer. Therefore, the contention of the insurer that it is not liable to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. 14. In so far as the claim of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was implicated in the case since the real driver did not possess a driving licence appears to be true in view of the evidence of PW.1, wherein he deposed in clear terms that the Tractor-Trailer was driven by one Vishwanatha and that since he did not possess a driving licence, a person by name, Sri Srirama, was implicated in the case. Though the learned counsel for the claimant specifically contended that both Sri Vishwanatha and Sri Sriram are the same persons, the claimant unfortunately had not placed any material in proof of the same. Thus, the contention of the insurer that the driver has been implicated in the case is accepted. 15. In that view of the matter, since the claimant has not taken any step to demonstrate that Sri Vishwanatha also had a driving licence, it is appropriate that the compensation that may be awarded by this Court has to be paid by the insurer and recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 and in the case of Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 9 SCC 650 . 16. 16. In so far as the claim of the claimant for enhancement of compensation, the Tribunal was right in accepting a sum of Rs.3,000/- as the notional monthly income of the claimant. The Tribunal ought not to have reduced the disability arbitrarily and without reason. However, having regard to the injuries and the disability suffered by the claimant estimated by PW2 at 20%, it is appropriate that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reconsidered and recalculated as follows: Sl. No. Heads under which compensation is awarded Amount (in Rupees) 1 Pain and suffering 40,000/- 2 Medical bills 16,701/- 3 Permanent disability at 20% (Rs.3000 x 12 x 17 x 20%) 1,22,400/- 4 Loss of income during the laid-up period 10,000/- 5 Attendant charges during hospitalization and laid-up period 10,000/- 6 Conveyance and nutritious food 15,000/- 7 Future medical expenses 20,000/- 8 Loss of amenities 20,000/- TOTAL 2,54,101/- In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,54,101/-. 17. Thus, the appeal MFA No.4694/2012 filed by the Insurer is allowed in part. The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and the insurer appellant herein is directed to pay to the claimant respondent No.1 herein a sum of Rs.2,54,101/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization and recover the compensation from the owner respondent No.2 herein. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal. 18. The appeal M.F.A. No.6937/2012 filed by the claimant is also allowed in part and in modification of the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal the claimant appellant is awarded compensation of Rs.2,54,101/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The insurer respondent No.2 herein is directed to deposit the compensation with interest as stated above within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Upon such deposit, 50% of the compensation shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the claimant appellant in any nationalized Bank for a period of two years.