JUDGMENT : Though these matters are listed for orders today, with the consent of both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. 2. Cross objection No.880/2012 in MFA No.21126/2012 is filed by the claimant challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 26.12.2011 passed in MVC No.193/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court and MACT, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). Appeals in MFA Nos.21125/2012 and 21126/2012 are filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these cross objection and appeals are as under: Claim petitions came to be filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles contending that on 08.12.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. the claimants were traveling in a vehicle bearing No.KA27/9926 from Asundi village to Ranebennur to go to Itagi Bheemakka temple as authorized passengers with their relatives and the driver of the said vehicle drove the same on P.B.Road and when they reached near Kurubageri cross, Ranebennur, he lost control over the autorickshaw and toppled down resulting in claimants sustaining injuries and thus sought for awarding suitable compensation. 4. In pursuance of the notice, Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections denying the claim petition averments in toto. In order to prove the issues, the claimants got examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and the doctor has been examined as PW.2. The claimants relied on documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.15. On behalf of the respondents, one Fakkirappa was examined as RW.1 and copies of Insurance policy and driving licence were got marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2. 5. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded a sum of Rs.1,41,700/in MVC No.193/2008 and Rs.66,800/in MVC No.194/2008 in respect of two injured persons respectively. It is that common judgment which is under challenge. 6. Learned counsel, Sri.G.N.Raichur, representing the Insurance Company vehemently contended that admittedly at the time of accident, five persons were traveling in the auto rickshaw which is beyond the permit and therefore there is violation of policy condition and the Tribunal has lost sight of the said aspect of the matter. He also contended that the Tribunal fastened liability on the Insurance Company which is incorrect and thus sought for allowing the appeals. 7. He also contended that the Tribunal fastened liability on the Insurance Company which is incorrect and thus sought for allowing the appeals. 7. Sri.G.N.Raichur also contended that there is violation of permit conditions in view of the fact that auto rickshaw had traveled beyond the permit area and therefore the insurance policy is violated. 8. On the question of quantum of compensation also, he vehemently contended that the quantum of compensation adjudged by the Tribunal having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, is exorbitant and thus sought for reduction in the compensation. 9. Per contra, Sri.Patil M.H. appearing for the claimant contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore sought for enhancing the same by allowing the cross-objection. He also contended that even assuming that there is violation of the policy condition, the Insurance Company should be directed to pay the compensation at the first instance and can recover the same from the owner. 10. The owner of the auto rickshaw though represented in the cross objection, did not chose to appear before the Court and in the connected appeals filed by Insurance Company though served, he remained absent. 11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the quantum of compensation adjudged by the Tribunal is on the lower side? (ii) Whether fastening of liability on the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is incorrect and needs modification? 12. In the case on hand, the accident involving autorickshaw bearing No.KA27/9926 is not in dispute. So also, the claimants sustaining injuries is not in dispute. The material available on record clearly indicate that the claimants have suffered grievous injures. Taking note of the nature of injuries and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,41,700/. While doing so, the Tribunal taken into consideration relevant aspects, namely, notational income, earning capacity, etc. The accident is of the year 2007. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/as the notional income. For the accidental claim of the year 2007, this Court and Lok-Adalaths would normally assess the income at Rs.4,000/. So also disability, pain and suffering and other heads, the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation. The accident is of the year 2007. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/as the notional income. For the accidental claim of the year 2007, this Court and Lok-Adalaths would normally assess the income at Rs.4,000/. So also disability, pain and suffering and other heads, the Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation. Instead of reassessing the compensation on each and every head, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the quantum of compensation is enhanced by another sum of Rs.65,000/globally, the same would meet the ends of justice. 13. In appeals of Insurance Company, the first contention of Sri.G.N.Raichur is that there is violation of permit conditions as the autorickshaw has traveled beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the permit conditions. Since the said aspect of the matter is no longer resintegraand is now covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Durgamma Yallamma vs. S.G.Naresh and Others reported in 2017 (1) AKR 67, the said contention cannot be countenanced in law. 14. Next question that is canvassed by the Insurance Company is there were excess passengers in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The material on record establishes that at the time of accident there were five passengers which is beyond the capacity of autorickshaw. Accordingly, there is violation of the policy. It is settled principles of law in such cases that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation and recover from its owner. Therefore, the adjudged compensation needs to be paid by the Insurance Company at the first instance and is entitled to recover the same from the owner in the very same proceedings. 15. In view of the foregoing, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA Nos.21125/2012 and 21126/2012 are allowed in part. Cross-objection filed by the claimant in MFA CROB. No.880/2012 is allowed in part. In modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.65,000/globally with interest at 6% p.a. in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Cross-objection filed by the claimant in MFA CROB. No.880/2012 is allowed in part. In modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.65,000/globally with interest at 6% p.a. in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Insurance Company is directed to deposit the adjudged compensation along with interest at the first instance within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the autorickshaw in the very same proceedings. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal stands unaltered. Ordered accordingly. Office to draw modified award accordingly.