JUDGMENT : Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. These two appeals are filed by the claimant and fifth respondent insurance company challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 09.10.2012 on the file of M.A.C.T.XII, Ballari, passed in M.V.C.No.686/2011. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeals are as under: A claim petition initially filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act which subsequently came to be amended into one under Section 166 of the M.V. Act contending that on 13.03.2011 when the claimant after completing his personal work, was proceeding in motorcycle bearing No.KA34/J-2027 from Rayadurga towards Ballari, a motorcycle bearing No.KA34/TRM/T-9536 coming from Ballari side, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant whereby the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to VIMS hospital and spent huge amount of money towards medical treatment and therefore, laid a claim petition seeking for awarding suitable compensation. 4. In response to the notice issued, the respondents No.2 and 5 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the petition averments. 5. The Tribunal raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the claimant and the doctor and considering the probative value of Exs.P1 to P13 and also the oral evidence of RW1 on behalf of insurance company and considering Exs.R1 to R7, allowed the claim petition in part awarding the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,64,544/as compensation and directed the fifth respondent to pay the adjudged compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle No.KA34/TRN-T-9536. 6. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant is in appeal and being aggrieved by the fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the adjudged compensation and recover the same from the owner, insurance company of motorcycle is in appeal. 7. Sri Y. Laxmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant vehemently contended that quantum of compensation adjudged by the Tribunal is on the lower side and sought for suitable enhancement. He further contended that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/which should have been at Rs.6,000/as per the charge prepared in Lok Adalath for the accidental claim of the year 2011. He further contended that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/which should have been at Rs.6,000/as per the charge prepared in Lok Adalath for the accidental claim of the year 2011. He also contended that the Tribunal did not grant any compensation on the head loss of amenities and prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Per contra, Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company vehemently contended that since two vehicles are involved, Tribunal ought to have directed to pay the compensation in the ratio of 50:50 and he also contended that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA34/TRN-T-9536 did not possess a valid driving licence and therefore, directing the appellant-insurance company to pay the entire compensation and recover the same from the owner is per se is illegal. He further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and sought for allowing the appeal of the insurance company and dismissal of the appeal of the claimant. 9. Sri R.R. Mane, learned counsel for Oriental Insurance Company submitted that the insurance company of the motorcycle of the rider is concerned, the rider is the owner of the motorcycle and in the absence of any valid coverage by paying extra premium, he could not claim any amount from his insurance company. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is just and proper. 10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the claimant has made out a case for enhancement? (ii) Whether the appellant insurance company has made out a case that the finding recorded by the Tribunal fastening the liability to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover from the owner is suffering from legal infirmity and calls for interference? 11. In the case on hand, the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant involving the motorcycle bearing No.KA34/J-2027 and motorcycle bearing No.KA34/TRM/T-9536 is not in dispute. The nature of injuries and the disability is established by the oral and documentary evidence. In the case on hand, the Tribunal considered the monthly income at the rate of Rs.5,000/but it should have been Rs.6,000/for the accidental claim of the year 2011 which is usually followed by this Court and in Lok Adalath as per the chart. 12. The nature of injuries and the disability is established by the oral and documentary evidence. In the case on hand, the Tribunal considered the monthly income at the rate of Rs.5,000/but it should have been Rs.6,000/for the accidental claim of the year 2011 which is usually followed by this Court and in Lok Adalath as per the chart. 12. So also there is some force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellant that no amount is awarded towards loss of amenities. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of enhancing the compensation on each and every head, if a sum of Rs.50,000/is enhanced globally, the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in affirmative. 13. Insofar as the argument put forth by the appellant insurance company is concerned, it is settled that if there are multiple vehicles involved in the accident, the claimant can claim compensation from any one of the insurance company. Further, the charge sheet came to be filed against the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA34/TRM/T-9536 and therefore, directing the insurance company of the motorcycle of the rider/claimant cannot be countenanced in law. 14. Further, what is ordered by the Tribunal to the appellant-Insurance Company is to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in the same proceedings. In the considered opinion of this Court, no contra evidence having been placed by the appellant-Insurance Company that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess valid driving licence, the argument of the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered in negative and the following order is passed. ORDER Appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.20053/2013 is dismissed. Appeal filed by the claimant in M.F.A.No.25603/2012 is allowed in part. In modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled for the enhanced compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Balance amount is ordered to be deposited by appellant Insurance Company within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.