JUDGMENT : 1. The claimant injured has challenged the judgment declared on 17.3.2022 by MACT (Aux), Dhari. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi relying upon the judgment in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/o. Late Laxmanbhai Ramsinghbhai Thakore (Koli) and Others v. Kandla Dock Labour Board and Another reported in 2021 I GLR 440 submitted that though the injured claimant’s negligence has been considered as 70%, the learned Tribunal was required to grant the compensation since the policy produced on record prove covered risk of the driver and further submitted that the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering and special diet, attendant and transportation also require reconsideration. 3. Mr. Mazmudar for the insurance company submitted that 70% negligence of the driver was observed and therefore, stated that the Tribunal has granted the amount accordingly. 4. The case of the claimant could be laid down in nut shell as under:- The claimant on 9.1.2003 was going from Dhari to Ahmedabad by driving luxury bus of Jalaram Travels towards Dhandhuka. At about 3.00 a.m. he dashed with the truck which was parked on the road. It was stated by the injured claimant that the truck was on the road without any indication by way of light or barricade or any other mode of signal to alert the ongoing vehicle. It was stated by the applicant that he was driving the bus in a very moderate speed and the accident has occurred because of the negligence of the truck driver who had parked his truck on the road. 5. In the cross-examination, the claimant had admitted that he was glared by the light of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction and because of that the accident had occurred. 6. In case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (supra), the full bench of this Court, in paragraph-10, observed as under: “10. Chapter XI of the Act covers the subject ‘Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks’ under section 146(1) of which no person shall use a motor vehicle in public unless there is a valid policy of insurance which complies with the requirements of the chapter. Section 147 provides for mandatory requirements of such insurance policy. Chapter XI of the Act covers the subject ‘Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks’ under section 146(1) of which no person shall use a motor vehicle in public unless there is a valid policy of insurance which complies with the requirements of the chapter. Section 147 provides for mandatory requirements of such insurance policy. It deserves to be noted that as per the provisions of Section 147 r/w 149 of the Act, the risks which are covered are statutorily provided, however, parties may enter into a contract by which the insurer agrees to cover additional risks by charging / payment of additional payment. It also deserves to be noted that the policy has a clause which defines the limits of liability in respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle under section 11(i) of the terms and conditions of the policy. In proviso (b) to section II (1), which reads as under: "Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment” Thus, the insurance policy would cover only the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. Thus, when the Insurance Company accepts the additional premium for legal liability to paid Driver and / or Conductor and / or Cleaner, employed in connection with the operation of the insured vehicle, by accepting additional premium as per IMT 28, the Insurance Company shall entail liability of indemnifying and legal liability is created towards paid Driver and / or Conductor and/ or Cleaner. In case when such additional premium is paid, the policy includes following clause: “In consideration of an additional premium of notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer shall indemnify the insured against the insured’s legal liability under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law and subsequent amendments of these Acts prior to the date of this Endorsement in respect of personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle insured herein and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent.” The aforesaid clause therefore, clearly prescribes that it covers the insured against the insured’s legal liability under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law. It may be noted that statutory policy would cover liability under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 as far as Driver is concerned. By accepting additional premium as per the IMT 28, the same added liability under Common Law and Fatal Accidents Act. Motor accidents liability predates the imposition of this liability under any form of statute and such liability would be part of Common Law till the time it was made a statutory liability.” 7. Thus, in accordance to the proposition of law laid down in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (supra), even if there is negligence of the driver but when the policy covers the risk, then the insurance company cannot deny the liability. As per the record, luxury bus owner of the insurance company has been made party respondent and the bus was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The policy referred of the bus bearing registration no. GJ-14 T-0828. The schedule sitting capacity of the bus is shown as 40 and the schedule covers the risk of the passengers as well as there is a compulsory insurance of owner and driver where the insurance company has received Rs.100/- as premium to cover the risk of the driver. 8. The Tribunal has considered 70% negligence of the claimant and 30% of the truck driver. In view of judgment in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (supra), the insurance company has to compensate the claimant for his own negligence. 9. 8. The Tribunal has considered 70% negligence of the claimant and 30% of the truck driver. In view of judgment in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (supra), the insurance company has to compensate the claimant for his own negligence. 9. The claimant was earning the income as bus driver and because of the accident suffered physical injury. He was an indoor patient for about 2 months and had taken treatment in Vadilal Hospital. He was operated on both legs and knee was fitted by inserting rod and wiring and he was compelled to take rest. To prove the physical disability, the claimant had produced the injury certificate issued by Vadilal Hospital at Exh.37. The learned Tribunal has considered the documents at Exh.37 to 47 to observe that the applicant had sustained injury of fracture and had taken various treatment and had been an indoor patient from 9.1.2003 to 28.1.2003. The disability certificate issued by Dr. Aditya Upadhyay, M.S. Ortho, Ahmedabad was produced on record at Exh.39. The learned Tribunal has observed that the Doctor had certified the permanent disability of lower limb as 42%. Both the advocates had agreed upon to consider 20% of the disability of the body as a whole. 10. The income of the claimant was considered as Rs.2,200/- per month and by applying multiplier of 13 with the disability of 20%, the future loss of income has been considered as Rs.68,640/- which is in accordance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, the said amount is just and proper. 11. The claimant could prove medical expenses of Rs.15,700/- which has been granted by the Tribunal. However, considering the sufferings and the injuries and further the profession of the applicant as being driver, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is on lesser side which is required to be increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. On the same line, the amount under the head of special diet, attendant and transportation requires increase from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 12. As noted hereinabove, the claimant was compelled to take rest which could be inferred from the fact that he was treated and operated on both the legs. His knee cap was fitted with the rod and wiring. Hence, actual loss is required to be considered for 4 months. Hence, under the head of actual loss of income, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.8,800/-. His knee cap was fitted with the rod and wiring. Hence, actual loss is required to be considered for 4 months. Hence, under the head of actual loss of income, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.8,800/-. Thus, the computation would be as under:- Rs. 68,640/- Future loss of income Rs. 15,700/- Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/- Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Special diet, attendant and transportation Rs. 8,800/- Actual loss of income Rs.1,18,140/- Total compensation 13. As the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.29,622/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the claimant would be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.88,518/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Let total amount be paid to the claimant on verification of the identity. 14. The impugned judgment and award be modified accordingly. The appeal is partly allowed. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal, if received.