JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The MFA No.101702/2016 is filed by the Insurance company challenging the liability and MFA Crob No.100162/2016 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation against the Judgment and award dtd. 4/4/2016 in MVC No.82/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Koppal. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant is that, on 31/10/2009 at about 3.00 p.m. she, her husband and her relatives were waiting for conveyance to go to the Tawargera to perform the Bandenawaz Urus with all their food grains, utensils and other peripherals. At that time, the offending vehicle came there and as per the instructions of the driver all of them boarded the vehicle along with their goods in the carrier. Since the petitioner was 7 months pregnant the petitioner sat in the cabin of the vehicle. When the vehicle was proceeding near K.E.B, office situated in Kankagiri, the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the door of the cabin got opened. As a result, the claimant fell down and left side rear wheel passed on her limbs, spinal card, etc., The claimant also sustained abdominal injuries. The claimant fractured multiple fractures on the left lower limb. Immediately, the claimant was admitted to Government Hospital, at Koppal. Thereafter the claimant was admitted to SDM Hospital at Dharwad for a period of three months. The left lower limb was amputated apart from other surgeries and she has suffered 100% disability and claimed the compensation. 4. The Insurance company appeared the contested the matter by filing the objection statement and it is contended that, the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and the liability is also subject to the valid and effective driving licence and also it is contended that, the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying vehicle and the petitioner traveling in the vehicle is a unauthorized passenger and hence, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The claimant in order to substantiate her case, she herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined other two witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.13 and on the other hand, the respondent examined two witnesses i.e. R.W.1 and R.W.2 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. 5. The tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.6,42,370.00 and hence, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance company contending that, the liability fastened on the Insurance company is erroneous. It is contended that, the vehicle is goods vehicle and the claimant has travelled as unauthorized passenger and the documents of criminal court records clearly discloses that they were waiting for boarding the vehicle and they have boarded the vehicle and an accident was occurred and hence, it is clear that, mere having the luggage with them cannot be termed as goods as defined under the Act under Sec. 2(13) of the M.V.Act and the Office of the Insurance company is also examined as R.W.1. The trial Court has committed an error in considering the document at Ex.P.6, P.11 and P.12 and even in spite of the same is considered, it shows that petitioner was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, and that in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2, nowhere it is suggested to them that the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as gratuitous passenger, ignoring that it was suggested to P.W.1 that he had stopped the lorry by showing hand and they were travelling and in spite of all these materials were there, the tribunal has committed an error. It was also contended that in the mini lorry they were carrying 10-15 persons as against the seating capacity of only 3 including the driver and hence, the tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the Insurance company. The counsel also in support of his arguments, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Smt. Lalithabai and others, reported in ILR 2007 Kar. The counsel also in support of his arguments, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Smt. Lalithabai and others, reported in ILR 2007 Kar. 1585, wherein this Court taken note of Sec. 2(13), with regard to the definition of goods meaning of carrying one or two bags of grains in a goods vehicle will amount to carrying of the goods and held that, the very mention of bag will not automatically lead to the conclusion that they are the goods and further held that, the very mention of the word goods does not include luggage or personal effects or personal luggage of the passengers travelling in the vehicle is indicative of the fact that small quantities of food grains carried in one or two bags as personal luggage or personal effects will not bring them within the meaning or expression of goods. The counsel referring this Judgment would vehemently contend that, carrying of one or two bags along with them does not amounts to goods and hence, the liability fastened on the Insurance company is erroneous. The counsel also appearing for the appellant would submits that, witness RTO is also examined as R.W.2 and in his evidence, he says that, no permit and FC is available in the office in respect of KA-35/1165 and also it is evident that on 3/11/2009 the vehicle was migrated from Hospet office and the previous documents will be there in the Hospet office and also he has produced the RC extract and the same is marked as Ex.R.6. The owner has to produce the document of registration and in order to drive the vehicle, LMV goods badge driving licence is necessary and hence, the counsel would submits that, with regard to the violation of policy conditions, already examined R.W.2. 6. The owner has to produce the document of registration and in order to drive the vehicle, LMV goods badge driving licence is necessary and hence, the counsel would submits that, with regard to the violation of policy conditions, already examined R.W.2. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that, R.W.1 has been examined before the trial Court and in the crossexamination he categorically admitted that the police records reveals that the statement was given that they were carrying goods and when there is a clear admission on the part of the R.W.1 that the persons have given the statement before the police that, they were proceeding along with goods and keeping the same in the backside of the lorry and documents at Ex.P.11 and P.12 have also confronted and got marked through the R.W.1 and now cannot contend that, they were not carrying any goods. The other contention that carrying of bag not amounts to carrying of goods cannot be accepted and it is emerging in the evidence that, they were carrying five bags of food grains and hence, the said contention of the Insurance company cannot be accepted. The counsel also would submits that, it is the case of amputation above the knee and compensation awarded is very meager and compensation awarded under the other heads is also very meager and the disability is taken only to the extent of 50% when the amputation was above the knee and apart from that, future prospectus has not been taken while calculating the future loss of income. 7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance company ? (ii) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation ? (iii) What order? 8. Answer to Point No.1 : The main contention of the Insurance company is that, the injured was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the vehicle and the counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the statement made by the husband of the injured. (iii) What order? 8. Answer to Point No.1 : The main contention of the Insurance company is that, the injured was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the vehicle and the counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the statement made by the husband of the injured. The very claimant herself stated before the police wherein she has stated that when they were waiting near the bus stop offending vehicle came and all of them have boarded along with their relatives and she being a pregnant, she was sitting by the side of the driver in the cabin and driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and nothing is stated in her statement. However, the trial Court has committed an error in relying upon the statement of other witnesses i.e. Ex.P.6, P.11 and P.12. The counsel also would submits that, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that, they were proceeding along with their luggage and in her chief evidence itself says that vehicle was proceeding to Kanakgiri and they have enquired with the driver for hire purpose and he agreed for hire purpose and hence, all of them have put the luggage i.e. rice bag, food grains and also other materials and her husband was also there in the said vehicle and accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that, she has given the complaint in the police station and it is also suggested that, it is a goods vehicle and the same is also admitted. When the question was put to the witness what she was carrying and she says that she was carrying the rice and also the food grains and also the Jaggery. When the witness given the evidence that when she was carrying rice, food grains and jaggery and the same is not denied in the cross examination that she was not carrying the same along with her. The counsel would contend that, in the cross examination a suggestion was made that they have shown hands and boarded the lorry to go to another village and that itself is a cross-examination that she was proceeding as unauthorized passenger in the vehicle. The claimants also examined one witness as P.W.2 and P.W.2 also proceeding in the said vehicle. The counsel would contend that, in the cross examination a suggestion was made that they have shown hands and boarded the lorry to go to another village and that itself is a cross-examination that she was proceeding as unauthorized passenger in the vehicle. The claimants also examined one witness as P.W.2 and P.W.2 also proceeding in the said vehicle. It is suggested that, they were travelled in the goods vehicle as a passenger and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The other witness is P.W.3. The P.W.3 also cross-examined and in the cross-examination it was elicited that it is a goods carrying vehicle and it is suggested that they were not having any rice bags in the said vehicle and the same is denied. R.W.1 who has been examined before the trial Court says that, without the permit the vehicle was plying and the petitioner and others were travelling in the vehicle as unauthorized passenger. In the cross-examination he admits that, when the suggestion was made that the persons who were proceeding in the vehicle have given the statement before the police that they were carrying the goods in the vehicle, and hence, the Ex.P.11 and 12 are also got marked. The other witness is P.W.2 who is the RTO. In his evidence, he says that, the vehicle was migrated vehicle and prior to 3/11/2009 the other documents will be with the Hospet office. But in the cross-examination he admits that, this vehicle was earlier registered at Hospet RTO office and also the vehicle was migrated on 3/11/2009 and the vehicle is a light goods vehicle and the badge is required for passenger carrying vehicle. The document is confronted that on 31/10/2009 RTO office issued the permit and the same is valid and the same was marked as Ex P.13. 9. Having head the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt in the statement given by the P.W.1 she has not stated anything about she was proceeding along with the goods in terms of Ex.P.2, but the other witnesses have given the statement before the police in terms of Ex.P.6, P.11 and P.12 that they were carrying luggage along with them and police have also investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet wherein the charge-sheet is filed under Ss. 279 and 338 of IPC and Sec. 187 of M.V.Act and the R.W.1 in the cross examination he categorically admits that, in the statement of witnesses in terms of Ex.P.6, P.11 and P.12 it is mentioned that, they were proceeding along with the goods and the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend by referring the Judgment supra, the personal luggage will not be a goods, but it is categorically stated that they were carrying the rice bag, grains bag and also the Jaggery bag along with them and they were proceeding to Urus. When such evidence is given before the Court the very contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that, it does not amounts to a goods cannot be accepted and also the Court has to take note of the injured is a illiterate and she has put thumb impression while recording her evidence before the Court and the claimant is not literate to differentiate the luggage or bags and when the bags are there in the vehicle itself as per the statement of witnesses in terms Ex.P.6, P.11 and P.12, the very contention of the Insurance company cannot be accepted. With regard to the other contention that permit and other contention is concerned R.W.2 who has been examined, he admits that there was a permit as on the date of the accident i.e. on 31/10/2009 and the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that, that is with the earlier owner and not with the present owner and the very contention that there was no permit as on the date of the accident, cannot be accepted and R.W.2 also categorically admits that, the vehicle was registered at Hospet office prior to 3/11/2009 and the other documents are available with Hospet office and even though that answer is elicited from the mouth of R.W.2, no effort is made by the respondent to prove the said contention and when such being the circumstances when the same has not been proved by either securing the documents from the Hospet office, or by examining any other official from the concerned office, the very contention that it is clear violation of the policy conditions cannot be accepted and hence, having considered the material available on record, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant counsel that the tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance company. The counsel appearing for the appellant would also contend that, there was no driving licence and notice was also issued to respondent owner to produce the same and except producing of the documents at Ex.R.1 to R.4 and out of that Ex.R.2 is notice issued to the owner to provide driving licence, R.C., F.C., permit and Insurance policy and also another document at Ex.R.3 and in order to prove the fact that the same was served on the owner, no material is placed before the Court and by merely producing the copy of the letter addressed to the owner in terms of Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 and the same cannot be a proof for having served the notice and unless notice is served on the respondent the very contention that, it has been proved that he was not having driving licence cannot be accepted and hence, the other contention that he was not having any driving licence has not been proved by the respondent. Under the circumstances I do not find any force in the contention that the tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance company. Under the circumstances I do not find any force in the contention that the tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance company. 10. Answer to Point No.2 : The claimant in the appeal has contended that the compensation awarded is very meager and on perusal of the compensation assessed by the tribunal, the compensation awarded in a case of amputation above the knee, the pain and suffering an amount of Rs.10,000.00 is awarded and the claimant was in the hospital for a period of 2 months 20 days and the discharge summary which is marked as Ex.P.10 which discloses that, she was inpatient from 1/11/2009 to 20/1/2010 for a period of 02 months 20 days and also the left leg was amputated above the knee. No doubt, the claimant has not examined the Doctor, but discharge summary discloses that she was subjected to surgery and in terms of discharge summary itself it is mentioned that, her left leg is amputated on 1/11/2009 and having taken note of the leg was amputated above the knee, the trial Court has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.10,000.00 under the head of pain and sufferings, that too when the claimant was inpatient for a period of almost 80 days and hence, it is appropriate to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 under the head of pain and sufferings. The trial Court has also awarded compensation of Rs.50,566.00 under the head of medical expenses and the same is also based on the documentary evidence and hence, it does not require any interference. For loss of amenities, nutrition, died and attendant charges, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,200.00. As I have already pointed out that, the claimant was inpatient for a period of 80 days, and considering the year of the accident i.e. 2009, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.60,000.00 as against Rs.16,200.00 including food and nourishment. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,471.00 under the head of loss of income during laid up period. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,471.00 under the head of loss of income during laid up period. Considering the income of Rs.200.00 for 81 days i.e. for the period of hospitalization and only calculated the loss of income for the period of hospitalization and the tribunal has not considered the loss of income for uniting the injury which was amputated and hence, it is appropriate to take the loss of income for a period of six months since the claimant was in the hospital for a period of almost 80 days. Having considered the income for the year 2009, the notional income would be Rs.5000.00, but the tribunal has taken income of Rs.5,730.00 and the same is little higher side and in the absence of any documentary proof, ought to have taken the notional income of Rs.5,000.00. If it is taken Rs.5,000.00 it comes to Rs.30,000.00 for period of six months. Now this court has to reassess the loss of future income and the document at Ex.P.10 clearly discloses that, her left leg was amputated above the knee and the disability taken by the tribunal is only 50% and when the same is above the knee, the tribunal ought to have considered the disability at little higher side and though it claimed that she has suffered 100% disability in view of the amputation and she was a coolie, the Court has to take note of the amputation above the knee, it is appropriate to consider the disability to the extent of 70% as held against 50% and taking into note of 70% disability the injured has to suffer her rest of life with the disability of 70%, it is appropriate to add the future prospectus and in view of the Judgment of Sanjay Kumar case and Sayyad Sadiq case, it is a fit case to add future prospectus and when she is aged about 35 years, the relevant multiplier is 16' and having added 50% of future prospectus i.e. Rs.5,000.00 + Rs.2,500.00 = Rs.7,500.00 X12X16=Rs.10,08,000.00. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities and when the claimant is aged about 35 years and she has to lead her rest of life with the disability of 70%, and hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities and when the claimant is aged about 35 years and she has to lead her rest of life with the disability of 70%, and hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The amputation is done above the knee and when such being the case, she has to lead her rest of life and though not stated anything about the artificial limb, she has to change the same periodically throughout her life and hence, it is appropriate to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 under the head of artificial limb. In all the claimant is entitle for compensation of Rs.15,48,566.00. 11. Answer to Point No.3 : In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the Insurance company is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed, granting compensation of Rs.15,48,566.00 with 6% interest as against Rs.6,42,317.00 awarded by the tribunal. The Insurance company is directed to pay the remaining compensation within six weeks. The amount in deposit is ordered to transmit the same to the concerned tribunal, forthwith. Registry is directed to send back the TCR if any, to the concerned tribunal, forthwith.