JUDGMENT : 1. Both the appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment as they are arising out of one and the same judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Gangavathi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short) in MVC No.99/2011 dated 11.10.2013. 2. MFA No.101005/2014 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, while MFA No.100242/2014 is filed by the appellant/insurance company challenging the fastening of liability on the insurance company. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:- It is contended by the claimant that on 28.09.2010 the claimant and his friend were returning from Hospet on a Hero Honda Passion motorcycle and when they reached near fish market situated at Munirabad road, T.B. Dam on NH-13 at about 3.30 p.m., the driver of the lorry bearing No.PB-05/M-6665, drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle from the hind side, due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Hospet and thereafter to VIMS Hospital Bellary for higher medical care. It is further contended that he spent a huge amount towards his medical expenses and he was eking out his livelihood through bakery business and he was also a priest and was having a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. 4. After service of notice, respondent No.2/owner of the lorry remained absent and respondent No.3/insurance company appeared before the Tribunal and contested the petition. The petition stood dismissed as against respondent No.1, who was the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. In the written statement, the insurance company denied the entire petition averments and has specifically contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of Hero Honda motorcycle by its rider. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence and therefore there is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. In order to substantiate the petition averments, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and one independent witness as P.W.2 and the doctor, who treated the claimant as P.W.3. By way of documentary evidence, the claimant relied on 22 documents which are marked before the Tribunal vide Exs.P.1 to 22. 7. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company, one Sri. 6. In order to substantiate the petition averments, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and one independent witness as P.W.2 and the doctor, who treated the claimant as P.W.3. By way of documentary evidence, the claimant relied on 22 documents which are marked before the Tribunal vide Exs.P.1 to 22. 7. On behalf of the respondent/insurance company, one Sri. Sachin Honnavar got examined as R.W.1 and they have relied on 10 documents, which are marked as Exs.R.1 to R.10. 8. On cumulative consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by granting the compensation in a sum of Rs.2,95,800/-as under:- (A) Loss of future income : Rs.1,34,400=00 (B) Pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000=00 (C) Loss of amenities in life : Rs. 25,000=00 (D) Loss of earning during treatment Period : Rs. 16,000=00 (E) Medical Expenses : Rs. 85,400=00 (F) Diet, Nourishment, Attendant Charges and conveyance : Rs. 15,000=00 Total : Rs.2,95,800=00 9. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not properly assessing the monthly income of the claimant and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company has contended that the fastening of liability on the insurance company cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle and in this regard he has drawn our attention to Ex.P.6 and P.22, which are the copies of driving licence and letter issued by District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for our consideration in these appeals are as under:- 1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in fastening the liability on the insurance company? 12. On cumulative consideration of entire material on record, we answer the above points as under: Point No.1 : In affirmative Point No.2 : In the negative for the following: REASONS 13. Point No.1:-The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in assessing the monthly income of the claimant in a sum of Rs.4,000/-having regard to the year of the accident. Point No.1:-The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in assessing the monthly income of the claimant in a sum of Rs.4,000/-having regard to the year of the accident. He further contended that the claimant was earning Rs.12,000/-per month by way of bakery business and as a priest. 14. In this case, the claimant getting injured in a road traffic accident occurred between Hero Honda motorcycle and a lorry bearing No.PB-05/M-6665 on 28.09.2010 at 3.30 p.m., near fish market on Munirabad road, T.B. Dam on NH-13 is not in dispute. So also, the injuries sustained by the claimant. 15. To substantiate that the claimant was earning Rs.12,000/-per month, apart from his oral testimony, the claimant also examined his alleged employer namely Bangarayya S/o. Kurumayya as P.W.2. Through him, he got marked Ex.P.11 to show that he was earning Rs.12,000/-, which is a document whereby P.W.2 has certified that he was paying Rs.12,000/-per month as a salary to the claimant. It is pertinent to note that P.W.2 is not cross-examined by the insurance company. However the Tribunal has considered the effect of oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.P.11/pay certificate and has observed that the claimant did not mention the name of the employer in column 5 at the time of filing of claim petition and he also mentioned that he was doing his business independently. The Tribunal also observed that no tangible document was produced by the claimant to establish that P.W.2 was in fact running a bakery and the claimant was employed therein and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/-per month. 16. In our considered opinion, this finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of material on record and therefore calls no interference. 17. The Tribunal further assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-in the absence of any proof of monthly income. 18. On this core, we find sufficient force in the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the claimant that the monthly income should have been assessed at the rate of Rs.5,500/-for accidental claim of the year 2010. 19. In fact, this Court and the Lok-Adalaths have assessed the monthly income of a person at Rs.5,500/-notionally for the accident occurred in the year 2010. Therefore, the compensation on the head of loss of future earnings needs to be enhanced. 20. 19. In fact, this Court and the Lok-Adalaths have assessed the monthly income of a person at Rs.5,500/-notionally for the accident occurred in the year 2010. Therefore, the compensation on the head of loss of future earnings needs to be enhanced. 20. P.W.2/the doctor, who treated the claimant has opined that there is a disability of 40% on the lower back, 20% on the left knee and 20% on the chest. The Tribunal, considering the disability certificate issued by P.W.2, has rightly taken 1/3rd of the total disability, which works out to 20% to the whole body. The same is based on the sound reasoning and requires no interference. Having regard to the age of the claimant being 41 years multiplier ‘14’ adopted by the Tribunal is correct. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,84,800/-(Rs.5,500 x 20% x 12 x 14 = 1,84,800/-). 21. Further, claimant is entitled to an enhancement on the head of loss of earnings during treatment period and hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.22,000/-as against Rs.16,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 22. We find that the Tribunal has properly awarded the compensation on other conventional heads and the same requires no interference. Thus, the claimant has succeeded to the above extent and accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative. 23. Point No.2:-The learned counsel for the insurance company has vehemently contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and he was not authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle and as such, the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company. On record, the claimant has produced Ex.P.6/attested copy of the driving licence. 24. On behalf of insurance company, one Sachin Honnavar got examined as R.W.1. The effect of insurance policy being in force as on the date of the accident is evident from Ex.R.10. The insurance company tried to obtain the driving licence particulars of the driver of offending vehicle by filing an application under RTI Act to RTO Jamshedpur. However, the insurance company was not successful in obtaining a copy of the driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle. 25. The insurance company tried to obtain the driving licence particulars of the driver of offending vehicle by filing an application under RTI Act to RTO Jamshedpur. However, the insurance company was not successful in obtaining a copy of the driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle. 25. In Ex.P.6/copy of the licence it is found that 1st there is an endorsement to the effect that the respondent was permitted to drive heavy motor vehicle with effect from 15.02.2006 and he was also permitted to drive light motor vehicle from 07.04.2010 to 06.04.2013. 26. However, in Ex.P.22, in column No.3 there is a mention that “Light Motor Vehicle only”. Based on these two documents, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that this court has to re-appreciate the evidentiary value of the documents produced by the claimant and hold that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle. 27. We are not persuaded by the said submission on behalf of the insurance company for more than one reason. 28. Firstly, there is no plea in the statement of objections regarding the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence to drive heavy motor vehicle. Secondly, the contention of the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle is not proved by the insurance company by placing any plausible evidence on record. In this regard, R.W.1 in his oral evidence stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all holding a driving licence and therefore, there is a breach of policy conditions. He relied on the office copy of the legal notice issued by the panal advocate for insurance company issued to respondents 1 and 2 to furnish a copy of driving licence. Further, he did not whisper anything in his examination-in-chief about the driver of offending vehicle not having any licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle. He did not assert that Ex.P.6 is a false document. 29. Further, he did not whisper anything in his examination-in-chief about the driver of offending vehicle not having any licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle. He did not assert that Ex.P.6 is a false document. 29. Further, in the cross-examination, the counsel for the claimant confronted Ex.P.6 to R.W.1 and questioned him that there is any endorsement to the effect that the driver was permitted to drive heavy motor vehicle w.e.f. 15.02.2006, to which R.W.1 gave an evasive answer that he can answer only if the extract is produced about the validity of the driving licence. 30. In other words, from the oral evidence of R.W.1 or from the documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal, the insurance company is unable to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle. 31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the ground urged by the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence and therefore fastening of liability on the insurance company by the Tribunal is bad in law sans merit and accordingly, the point No.2 is answered in the negative and we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The appeal in MFA No.100242/2014 filed by the appellant/insurance company is dismissed and the appeal in MFA No.101005/2014 filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 11.10.2013, passed in MVC No.99/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., at Gangavathi is modified and the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,52,200/-as against Rs.2,95,800/-awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount in deposit, if any, made by the insurance company shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.