JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the order of the Small Causes Court and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-09) passed in MVC No.6788/2013 dated 01.12.2014. 2. On 19.10.2013 at about 6.15 p.m., when the appellant was going on his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-Y-2558 along with his friend as a pillion rider near Talakunte Gate, Malur Taluk, a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-M-4913 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle. The appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was hospitalized and treated as an inpatient towards which he incurred huge expenses. He further stated that the appellant was a student of a Bachelor of Commerce at the time of the accident, he was not able to attend his college for a period of three months and therefore, he could not take up his examination and consequently, he was declared failed for that particular year. 3. On the basis of the above, the appellant approached the Tribunal seeking for compensation towards injuries and losses caused to him. 4. The Tribunal after considering the material on record awarded a sum of Rs.2,27,000/-along with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization under the following heads. Sl. No. Heads of accounts Rupees (Rs.) 1 Pain and sufferings 40,000 2 Medical expenses 8,000 3 Attendant charges, nutritious expenses & transportation charges 14,000 4 Loss of future income due to permanent disability 1,30,000 5 Future medical expenses 15,000 6 Loss of future amenities and unhappiness 20,000 Total 2,27,000 5. The Tribunal, however, noting that the offending Maruti Car did not possess a fitness certificate as on the date of the accident, though it had a fitness certificate on the date of issuance of the insurance policy, held that the owner of the offending car i.e., insured has violated the terms of the policy and therefore, imposed the penalty on the owner of the car and discharged the Insurance Company from its liability. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads of account is meager. The same needs to be enhanced. On account of the accident, the appellant not being able to take up his examination has not been considered by the Tribunal and amounts towards the same needs to be awarded. 7. The same needs to be enhanced. On account of the accident, the appellant not being able to take up his examination has not been considered by the Tribunal and amounts towards the same needs to be awarded. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company would submit that the non-renewal of the fitness certificate by the owner of the car is in violation of terms of the insurance policy as also of the Motor Vehicle Act. The owner of the vehicle could not have driven the vehicle without a fitness certificate and therefore, due to such violation, the owner of the vehicle is required to make payment of compensation. The same cannot be imposed on the Insurance Company. On the basis of the said contention, it is submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no need for any interference by this Court with the said order. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company and perused the papers. 9. At para 26 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has observed that the offending vehicle was insured for the period from 10.04.2013 to 09.04.2014 and as on date of the accident, there was a valid fitness certificate which was active till 23.07.2013. The accident having occurred on 19.10.2013, fitness certificate had not been renewed by the owner of the car. 10. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal has held that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of RANGAPPA @ RANGAPPA SHETTY VS. JAYARAMAIAH AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2014 KAR 191 was not applicable since the fitness certificate expired subsequent to the issuance of the insurance policy and there was a violation of the policy condition. 11. Having perused the documents and the judgment, it is seen that as on the date of the issuance of the insurance policy, there was a fitness certificate and vehicle was being plied on the road. At the time of issuance of insurance policy, the insurer has not limited its liability till the date of validity of the fitness certificate. The insurer had issued a policy beyond the validity of the fitness certificate. At the time of issuance of insurance policy, the insurer has not limited its liability till the date of validity of the fitness certificate. The insurer had issued a policy beyond the validity of the fitness certificate. Therefore, the insurer cannot now contend that the policy would be valid only until the date of the validity of the fitness certificate more so when the insurer has collected the premium for the entire period without any limitation. Needless to say that at the time of issuance of the insurance policy, the insurer has to verify the validity of the required document including the existence of a valid fitness certificate. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that when the insurer knowing fully well that the fitness certificate was valid only till 23.07.2013 having issued a policy to cover the period beyond the said date, insurer would be liable to make payment of compensation for the entire period during which the insurance policy is in operation subject to recovering the same from the insured on account of violation committed by the insured in not renewing the fitness certificate as agreed by the insured in terms of the policy. 12. In view of the above discussion, the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation amount due to the above violation is set aside and the Insurance Company is liable to make payment of compensation awarded subject to however to the condition that the insurer would be at liberty to recover the same from the insured on account of violation of the policy conditions by the insured. 13. Coming to the quantification of the compensation, the appellant is said to have suffered fracture of medial malleolous, fracture of right iliac wring and fracture of left foot-proximal phalanx of 2nd toe. 14. The appellant was treated as an inpatient from 20.10.2013 to 16.11.2013, that is to say, that the appellant was hospitalized for nearly a month for such injuries. The hospitalization for a period of month would indicate the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. The treating doctor has opined that the whole body disability is 13%. However, the Tribunal has taken into account the disability of 10%. The hospitalization for a period of month would indicate the grievous nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. The treating doctor has opined that the whole body disability is 13%. However, the Tribunal has taken into account the disability of 10%. Hence, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the certification of the treating doctor when there is no evidence contrary to such evidence available on record either by way of cross-examination or by way of evidence led by the Insurance Company. The appellant also not being able to attend to the examination on account of being laid up has resulted in failing in examination for that year. Hence, the appellant also needs to be compensated on this head of account. 15. The Tribunal has considered the income of the appellant to be Rs.6,000/-p.m., annualized to Rs.72,000/-p.a. Considering that the appellant was 21 years at the time of the accident, the multiplier applicable would be ‘18’. Hence, the compensation that is liable to be awarded for loss of future earnings would be: Rs.72,000 x 18 x 13/100 = Rs.1,68,480/- 16. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-towards loss of future income due to permanent disability, the same is enhanced to a sum of Rs.1,68,480/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards the pain and sufferings. The same is enhanced to a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/-towards attendant and transportation charges and nutritious expenses. Considering that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of nearly a month, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 19. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-towards loss of amenities. The loss of amenities would also includes the loss suffered by the appellant on account of his failure to attend to his examination resulting in loss of one year of his academic year. Hence, the appellant would have to undergo education for additional period of one year on account of the same. The income of the appellant has been taken as Rs.6,000/-p.m. On account of loss of one year of educational life has to be awarded @ Rs.6,000/-x 12 = Rs.72,000/-. Additionally, the appellant is required to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards the fees to the college for the additional educational year which is also due to the accident. Hence, the same is awarded at Rs.1,12,000/-. 20. Additionally, the appellant is required to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards the fees to the college for the additional educational year which is also due to the accident. Hence, the same is awarded at Rs.1,12,000/-. 20. In view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is under: Sl. No Heads of account Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Enhanced compensation 1 Pain and sufferings 40,000 50,000 10,000 2 Medical expenses 8,000 3 Attendant charges, nutritious expenses & transportation charges 14,000 20,000 6,000 4 Loss of future income due to permanent disability 1,30,000 1,68,480 38,480 5 Future medical expenses 15,000 6 Loss of future amenities and unhappiness 20,000 1,12,000 92,000 Total 2,27,000 3,05,480 1,46,480 21. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i). The appeal is partly allowed. (ii). The judgment of Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.6788/2013 dated 01.12.2014 is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,46,480/-along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. (iii). The finding of the Tribunal with regard to owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation on account of policy violation due to non-renewal of the fitness certificate is set aside. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the awarded compensation with liberty to recover the same from the insured. (iv). The compensation awarded on other heads remains unaltered.