JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This appeal is at the instance of the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 2. Short background involving the case is that on 18.07.2003 at about 4.45 P.M. while the claimant was travelling in an Auto-Rikshaw bearing Registration No.OR-02-W-2921 on the left side of the road near Fire Station Kali Temple the offending Tata Chassis bearing Registration No.JH-05-A-0956 came and dashed against the Auto-Rikshaw resulting rash and negligent driving of the driver therein involving such accident. The claimant received grievous injuries and with the help of the local people he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhubaneswar. For requiring emergency attention with qualified Doctor, the injured was referred to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack where he was treated as an indoor patient. In the premises that the injured was an Auto Garage Mechanic and was earning RS.2500/- per month and the driver of offending vehicle having valid licence claimant filed claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking an award of Rs.99,500/- as compensation. 3. Receipt of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest and was set ex-parte. On the contrary, the Insurance Company-respondent no.2 contesting in the matter filed written statement denying the allegation. The matter was contested by the Insurance Company on the premises that since charge-sheet involving criminal case against the driver indicated the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the Insurance Company has no responsibility. Basing on the pleading, the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack framed the following issues: 1) Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No.JH-05-A- 0956 (Tata Chassis), the alleged accident took place and in that accident the petitioner sustained injuries? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so what should be the extent? 3) Whether all the Opp.Parties or any of the Opp. Party is/are liable to pay compensation? 4) To what other relief if any, the petitioner is entitled to? 4. 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so what should be the extent? 3) Whether all the Opp.Parties or any of the Opp. Party is/are liable to pay compensation? 4) To what other relief if any, the petitioner is entitled to? 4. Entering into materials involving the claim, ultimately the Tribunal by the impugned judgment while answering each issue in favour of claimant allowed the claim on contest against opposite party no.2 and ex-parte against opposite party no.1 thereby awarding consolidated cost of Rs.500/- and further directing the opposite party no.2-New India Assurance Co.Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- only to the claimant with interest at the rate of 7% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 12.11.2003 within one month till realization. 5. Challenging the impugned judgment, Sri Kar, Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant in his attempt to enhance the compensation contended that for admitted materials available on record, Sri Kar attempted to establish his claim for enhancement of compensation. 6. Sri S.K.Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-Insurance Company on the other hand referring to the discussions and the finding of the Tribunal contended that for the detail discussion and taking into account of the materials available therein, there appears there is right assessment on the entitlement of compensation requiring no interference in the impugned judgment. 7. 8. Considering The Rival Contentions Of The Parties, This Court For The Admitted Position Of The Case That There Occurred An Accident Resulting The Claimant Got Injuries, The Offending Chassis Involved Was Also Insured, The Driver Since Having Valid Driving Licence And Looking To The Materials Available On Adjudication On The Aspect Of Compensation, This Court Here Finds The Claimant Has Filed Documents In Support Of His Case Marked As Exts.1, 2, 3, 3(A),3(B) And 4. The Tribunal On Assessment Of The Materials Available On Record, Particularly, Through The F.I.R. Came To Observe That The Owner Of The Auto-Rikshaw Was The Claimant. Though There Is No Dispute That The Claimant-The Owner Of The Auto Rikshaw While Sitting In The Auto-Rikshaw, He Sustained Injuries. Thus Such A Person Cannot Be Disentitled From Compensation. However, There Is No Challenge To The Entitlement By Anybody Aggrieved. Though There Is No Dispute That The Claimant-The Owner Of The Auto Rikshaw While Sitting In The Auto-Rikshaw, He Sustained Injuries. Thus Such A Person Cannot Be Disentitled From Compensation. However, There Is No Challenge To The Entitlement By Anybody Aggrieved. While Coming To Assess The Negligent, This Court Finds In Spite Of Material Through The Criminal Proceeding That There Is Rash And Negligent Driving Of The Offending Chassis But However Since The Charge-Sheet Has Been Filed Involving The Driver Of The Auto-Rikshaw And Tata Chassis, There Is No Infirmity In The Tribunal Observation Observing The Claimant Will Be Entitled To 50% Of Compensation For Negligence Of Both The Vehicles. However, While Assessing The Compensation, It Appears There Remains No Dispute That The Claimant Being A Garage Mechanic But Merely On The Premises That The Claimant Was The Owner Of The Auto-Rikshaw, The Claimant S Claim Being A Garage Mechanic Remains Disbelieved. It Is In The Premises, The Tribunal Has Come To Hold That The Owner Was Having Income Of Rs.25,000/- Per Month. Looking To The Other Materials Herein, This Court Finds There Is Clear Materials Showing The Claimant Was An Indoor Patient From 18.07.2003 To 29.09.2003 Roughly Over 70 Days, Besides The Claimant Has Also Filed Number Of Medical Bills And Proving The Same, It Is In This View Of The Matter, This Court Finds While Coming To Assess Compensation, The Tribunal Should Have Kept In Mind The Suffering Of The Petitioner In The Hospital For Long 70 Days And Further There Is Also Proving Of Certain Medical Bills, It Is In This View Of The Matter, This Court Finds The Tribunal Coming To Assess The Compensation Of Rs.40,000/- Remains Improper And There Need Interference Of This Court. However, Considering That The Accident Involved Herein Took Place On 18.07.2003 And We Are In 2021, No Purpose Will Be Served In Remanding The Matter Back For Re-Assessment On The Compensation. In The Better Interest Of The Parties, This Court, Therefore, Enhances The Total Compensation Awarded By The Tribunal From Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand) To Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand). For The Liability Involving Both The Vehicles, Petitioner-Claimant Will Be Entitled To 50% Of The Compensation, The Compensation In Favour Of The Claimant Is Enhanced To Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) To Be Paid With Interest At 7% Per Annum With Effect From The Claim Petition. For The Liability Involving Both The Vehicles, Petitioner-Claimant Will Be Entitled To 50% Of The Compensation, The Compensation In Favour Of The Claimant Is Enhanced To Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) To Be Paid With Interest At 7% Per Annum With Effect From The Claim Petition. The Claimant Will Also Be Entitled To Cost Of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) As Directed By The Tribunal. This Court Involving The Modified Award Observes In The Event The Insurance Company Has Already Deposited The Awarded Amount Involved Herein And The Claimant Has Already Received The Same, Petitioner Be Paid The Additional Sum Of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) As Compensation Along With Interest @ 7% Per Annum With Effect From 12.11.2003 Which Amount Be Deposited, As Undertaken By The Insurance Company, Within A Period Of Six Weeks From The Date Of This Judgment. This Court Clarifies, In The Event, The Compensation Is Not Deposited At All, Then Insurance Company Is Directed To Deposit The Compensation Amount Of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) Along With Interest @ 7% Per Annum With Effect From 12.11.2003 Till Realization And Also The Cost Of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) Within A Period Of Six Weeks From The Date Of Judgment. 9. The M.A.C.A. succeeds but, however, to the extent indicated hereinabove.