JUDGMENT : The petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.1571 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant herein and he impugns award dated 05.11.2007 on the ground that the same is on lower side. Respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal got arrayed as respondents herein also. 2. The short facts : The petitioner, who met with an accident on 03.12.2001 at about 2.30 p.m. while travelling as pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-11/F 2778 from Kodenchery to Omassery, filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, the owner cum driver of the Jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-11/E-7450, who hit down the petitioner. The petitioner claimed Rs.2 lakh as compensation. 3. The Tribunal, after examining the petitioner as PW1 and marking Exts.A1 to A4 series, arrived the compensation at Rs.29,900/-, rounded as Rs.30,000/-, and thereafter reduced 10% from the same. 4. This finding on contributory negligence is seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant apart from assailing the quantum also. Going by the evidence of PW1, the appellant/petitioner given evidence that the accident was the contribution of the 1st respondent, who had driven the Jeep bearing Registration No.KL-11/E-7450 at the time of the accident. Though no police charge produced to support the negligence, the petitioner given oral evidence and produced Ext.A1 copy of FIR dated 17.12.2001 to substantiate the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal found contributory negligence in this case, in the ratio 50:50 as against the rider of the motorcycle, where the petitioner was the pillion, without impleading him in the party array. In fact, if at all there is allegation of negligence against 2 vehicles, the course of action to be followed is to adjudicate the dispute after impleading the other alleged tortfeasors also in the party array. If such impleadment was not opted by the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have found non joinder of parties and provided opportunity to the petitioner to implead the other necessary parties. In case no steps taken to implead necessary parties by the petitioner, consequential orders could very well be passed. In this context, the very relevant and pertinent question is whether the Tribunal could find negligence against a person without he being impleaded in the proceedings and without hearing his side? In case no steps taken to implead necessary parties by the petitioner, consequential orders could very well be passed. In this context, the very relevant and pertinent question is whether the Tribunal could find negligence against a person without he being impleaded in the proceedings and without hearing his side? In this matter the Tribunal found 50% negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle even without impleading the rider, owner or the insurer of the motorcycle in the party array and without hearing them. Though the Tribunal reduced only 10% amount from the total award, after finding 50% negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider, no doubt, the Tribunal went wrong in finding negligence on the part of the rider of a vehicle, where the appellant was the pillion rider; in the matter of accident, without impleading him in the party array and without giving him opportunity of hearing. The said procedure adopted by the Tribunal is not only violation of principles of natural justice but also fundamental violation of the principles of trial in cases like this, though the procedure is summary in nature. 5. To be on the question as to whether the contents of the FIR or the evidence given before the tribunal is to be given weightage, it is to be noted that in a recent decision reported in [2021 (5) KLT 724 (SC)], National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, the Honourable Supreme Court categorically held that if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is received before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report. Here, PW1 categorically given evidence attributing negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and nothing extracted during cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. FIR also is in support of the evidence of PW1. As such the evidence of PW1 need not be disbelieved. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to be given weightage in this case, where the available police record in the form of FIR also is in support of the evidence of PW1. Thus the evidence of PW1 must be given emphasis to find the question of negligence, since the same found to be trustworthy of credit. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to be given weightage in this case, where the available police record in the form of FIR also is in support of the evidence of PW1. Thus the evidence of PW1 must be given emphasis to find the question of negligence, since the same found to be trustworthy of credit. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing 50% negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider eschewing the evidence of PW1 irrespective of the vital omission to implead the other tortfeasors in the party array, as I have already pointed out. In view of the fact, the said finding is reversed and set aside and it is held that the 2nd respondent is fully negligent in the matter of accident in this case. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant claimed Rs.6,000/- as monthly income being a mechanic in Sree Hari Automobiles, Omassery. Oral evidence also is there in this regard. However, the Tribunal granted Rs.4,500/- alone as consolidated sum towards loss of earnings without fixing notional monthly income and without finding the period of entitlement. 7. A cursory reading of the award would indicate that the submission is correct. Passing awards of this nature required to be deprecated since the Tribunals are dealing with the solemn function of determining just compensation under a benevolent legislation. It is true that the petitioner claimed Rs.6,000/- as his monthly income and given oral evidence in support of this contention, but no documents produced to substantiate his income. The accident is of the year 2001. In [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ], Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance and [ AIR 2014 SC 1052 : (2014) 2 SCC 735 ], Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., also the Honourable Supreme Court fixed income of a coolie at Rs.4,500/-during 2004. If followed the same ratio in the year 2001, then also the income of the petitioner to be refixed at Rs.3,000/- and reasonable amount under the head loss of earnings is required to be granted. 8. Here comes the significance of the injuries sustained by the appellant. Ext.A2 is the copy of the wound certificate showing 4 lacerated wound of different magnitude on forehead, left arm, near eyebrow and below knee. 8. Here comes the significance of the injuries sustained by the appellant. Ext.A2 is the copy of the wound certificate showing 4 lacerated wound of different magnitude on forehead, left arm, near eyebrow and below knee. Bleeding from nose was also noted in the wound certificate. Ext.A3 series is the CT scan report, which would suggest that the petitioner sustained fracture of maxilla and fracture of both bones of right leg. It is stated in the award by the Tribunal that PW1 deposed about 17 days' of hospitalisation due to fracture of his leg and he was at plaster for 2 months. Though medical records do not justify his hospitalisation, it could be gathered that for the treatment of fracture of maxilla and fracture of both bones of right leg, a reasonable period of hospitalisation and some sort of rest is absolutely necessary. Considering the above aspects, I am of the view that the petitioner herein is entitled to get loss of earnings at least for a period of 5 months. Therefore, loss of earnings is granted as : Rs.3000.00 X 5 = Rs.15,000/-, out of which Rs.4,500/- was granted by the Tribunal and the balance Rs.10,500/- is granted as additional compensation. 9. The award would suggest that Rs.15,000/- alone was granted by the Tribunal for pain and suffering, which might be taking note of the standards prevailing during 2001. Considering the gravity of the injuries and nature of treatment underwent as discussed, Rs.10,000/- more is granted under the head pain and suffering. Rs.3,000/- alone is granted under the head loss of amenities in a case where the petitioner sustained multiple fractures as noted above. In view of the fact, I am inclined to grant Rs.12,000/- more under this head. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. It is held that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.32,500/-(Rupees Thirty two thousand five hundred only) as enhanced compensation and the award impugned is modified as above with the same rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation, excluding the period of 190 days in filing this appeal as ordered in the order dated 16.07.2014 in C.M.Appl.No.908 of 2009 in M.A.C.A.No.797 of 2009. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today and the appellant is at liberty to release the same, on deposit.