JUDGMENT : T. KRISHNAVALLI, J. 1. C.M.A. (MD) No. 559 of 2018 has been filed by the Appellant Insurance Company challenging the award passed in MCOP No. 1158 of 2012, dated 26.10.2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai, whereas Cross Objection (MD) No. 5 of 2019 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The short facts of the case is that on 15.10.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. the claimant, while travelling as a pillion rider in the Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splender Pus TN-59-AH-8410 in Madurai to Alanganallur road, near Shanthi Nagar, Sri Aurobindo Metric Her. Secondary School Van TN-58-W-5907 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the back side of the motor cycle. Due to the impact, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries all over the body and immediately, she was taken to Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital, where she took treatment as inpatient from 15.10.2010 to 03.12.2010. A claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the alleged accident. 3. In the counter filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, they disputed the manner of accident and their liability to pay compensation. 4. The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle caused the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,81,925/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award of the tribunal, the Insurance company filed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, whereas being not satisfied with the award of the tribunal, the claimant is before this court for enhancement of compensation by filing cross objection. 5. This court heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. 5. This court heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent submitted that the cheque issued by the 1st respondent in the original petition towards premium for the policy of the insurance for the vehicle TN-58-W-5907 has bounced and the policy of insurance was cancelled and thereafter, the owner of the vehicle has not insured the same with the appellant/2nd respondent and the alleged policy issued by the appellant/2nd respondent for the vehicle TN-58-W-5907, after cancellation of the policy and covering the period of accident is not admitted and no premium was paid by the 1st respondent in the original petition for taking fresh policy of insurance from the appellant/2nd respondent, after cancellation of the previous policy and the owner of the vehicle has not produced the receipt purported to be the receipt for premium by cash and the alleged policy of insurance covering the period of accident for the vehicle TN-58-W-5907 was not genuine and true and the same was created by forgery and the engine number and chassis number for the vehicle concerned was not the actual engine number and chassis number and the same has been interpolated by the owner of the vehicle to cheat the appellant/2nd respondent and the time and date of commencement of the alleged policy of insurance would go to show that the same was created by the owner of the vehicle and once ex-parte decree is set aside, the evidence recorded before the ex-parte decree will be struck of and thereafter, a de-novo fresh trial is conducted and hence, the evidence of the official of the appellant/2nd respondent recorded before passing of ex-parte decree cannot confer any advantage for the claim or the owner of the vehicle and prays that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be allowed. 7. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/1st respondent, it is argued that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/2nd respondent Insurance Company and there was insurance coverage on the date of the accident, but on perusal of the Insurance policy, they found that the chassis and engine number are not correct and hence, they sent notice to the RTO stating that any vehicle was within the chassis and engine number as found in the insurance policy and for that, the RTO sent a reply stating that the engine number and chassis number found in the insurance policy is the vehicle to be manufactured during the year of 2034 and the engine number and chassis number found in the offending vehicle reveals that the year of manufacturing is 2010 and it is the fault on the part of the Insurance Company, hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and not the owner of the offending vehicle and prays that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be dismissed. 8. In this case, the official of the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company was examined as RW-1. RW-1 deposed that already the owner of the offending vehicle gave a cheque, dated 05.08.2010, but the cheque was returned for insufficient of funds and it was intimated to the owner of the offending vehicle, but the owner of the offending vehicle has not paid the premium and hence, on the date of the accident, there was no insurance coverage for the offending vehicle and hence, they are not liable to pay the compensation. 9. In this case, the owner of the offending vehicle was at first set ex-parte and the case was tried and the order was passed on merits as against the 2nd respondent. But the owner of the vehicle filed petition to set aside the ex-parte decree against I.A. No. 627 of 2014 with delay condonation. The above I.A. No. No. 627 of 2014 was allowed. The owner of the vehicle was examined as RW-2. RW-2 deposed that on 15.10.2010 at 9.00 a.m. policy was taken and hence, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle had insurance coverage. The above I.A. No. No. 627 of 2014 was allowed. The owner of the vehicle was examined as RW-2. RW-2 deposed that on 15.10.2010 at 9.00 a.m. policy was taken and hence, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle had insurance coverage. But the contention of the Insurance Company is that generally their office time will start at 9.30 a.m. but in the insurance policy filed by the owner of the vehicle in Ex.R6, the insurance for the offending vehicle commenced from 15.10.2014 at 9.00 am and further, the chassis number and engine number are different, hence the above insurance policy is not a genuine one. 10. The insurance policy Ex.R6 was carefully perused. As per the version of RW-2, the owner of the vehicle, it reveals that the chassis and engine number are not correct. No steps were taken by the owner of the vehicle requesting the Insurance Company to rectify the defects found in Ex.R6 policy. But RW-2 sent a letter to RTO requesting them to state, whether any registration of vehicle in respect of the chassis and engine number as stated in the insurance policy. But the RTO sent a reply stating that there was vehicle for the chassis and engine number stated in Ex.P6 policy and it is for the vehicle to be manufactured during the year of 2034. But the contention of the Insurance Company is that they have not issued Ex.R6 insurance policy. Further, no steps were taken by the owner of the vehicle to rectify the defects found in the insurance policy. For taking insurance policy, the owner gave proposal form. RW-2 the owner of the offending vehicle has not filed the copy of the proposal form. When the proposal form is filed, it is easier for this court to find out when the owner of the vehicle paid the premium. But the copy of the proposal form was not filed on the side of the owner of the vehicle. In Ex.R6, the engine and chassis numbers are not correct. Hence, it is held that Ex.R6 was not issued in respect of the offending vehicle. No document was filed on the side of the owner of the vehicle to prove that at the time of accident, there was no coverage for the offending vehicle. Hence, it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, it is held that Ex.R6 was not issued in respect of the offending vehicle. No document was filed on the side of the owner of the vehicle to prove that at the time of accident, there was no coverage for the offending vehicle. Hence, it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Only the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. 11. In this case, PW-2 Dr. Sankar Lal opined that the claimant had sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body including amputation of left hand, fracture on right hand and both legs, hip, head etc and assessed his disability at 90%. However, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant has suffered 70% disability and awarded Rs. 3,27,600/- under the head of loss of income. 12. It is to be noted here that in this case, based on the injuries sustained in the accident by the claimant, the Doctor has rightly assessed the disability of the claimant as 90%. Hence, this court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 5,61,600/- under the head of loss of income. 13. In respect of other heads, this court feels that some amount has to be given towards enhancement. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is recalculated as follows: Head Award of the Tribunal (Rs.) Award of this Court (Rs.) Loss of Income 3,27,600/- 4,91,400/- Pain and Suffering -- 25,000/- Nourishment 5,000/- 5,000/- Attending charges -- 10,000/- Loss of amenities -- 30,000/- Transportation 5,000/- 5,000/- Medical expenses 24,325/- 24,325/- Future Medical Expenses 20,000/- 20,000/- Total 3,81,925/- 6,10,725/- Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 6,10,725/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 14. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection are allowed. The finding of the tribunal with regard to the liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay the award is set aside. The 2nd respondent in C.M.A. (MD) No. 559 of 2018/Owner of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the modified amount of Rs. 6,10,725/- before the tribunal together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6,10,725/- before the tribunal together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without filing any formal petition before the tribunal. The claimant shall pay the additional court fee for the enhanced amount. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.