JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 19.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Modasa in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.110 of 2005. 2. That on 11.11.2004, the appellant was traveling in the Jeep bearing No.GJ-18-AA-5843 along with his goods. That the appellant was going from Village- Shinavad to Modasa. That while the jeep reached at village- Sijli, the driver of the jeep applied breaks and as a result, the jeep turned down. The appellant therefore received fracture injuries on right leg, left hand shoulder, backside, etc. The accident occurred due to loosing the balance over the steering of vehicle by the driver. Thus, due to rash and negligent manner, the accident occurred and the appellant sustained various injuries, as stated hereinabove. The complaint regarding the accident was lodged against the driver vide C.R.No.? -112/2004 with Modasa Rural Police Station. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has taken up the income of the claimant to Rs.1500/- per month, par below the rate of minimum wage at the relevant point of time. She would further submit that even though the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove his income, however, taking the aspect that the road accident took place in November 2004, at least rate of minimum wage for skilled worker should be taken up by the learned Tribunal as a base for calculating the loss of dependency.She would further submit that the learned Tribunal did not grant compensation for loss of future prospect as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 . She would further submit that the age of the claimant is 47 years as per the pleadings in the claim petition not controverted by other side. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation under the head of medical bills to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, whereas, the medical bills of Rs.1,82,171/- has been produced on record. She would further submit that the claimant was undergone multiple surgeries to cure his injuries, but the learned Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which is on lower side. She would further submit that the claimant was undergone multiple surgeries to cure his injuries, but the learned Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which is on lower side. Lastly, she would further submit that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that the claimant was travelling as fare paying passenger in a private car, which breaches the terms and conditions of the policy. She referred to the judgment of this Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Shardaben Wd/o Hasmukhbhai rendered in First Appeal No.275 of 2012 and submit to pass order for pay and recover in case if it is believed that the claimant was travelling as fare paying passenger in the errant vehicle jeep. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Rahevar would submit that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the insurance company and therefore, she submits to dismiss the appeal. 5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and perusing the evidence on record, what could be noticed that the learned Tribunal in absence of any evidence on record, has taken up the income of the claimant to Rs.1500/- for road accident which took place in November 2004. At the time of road accident, as per notification of rate of minimum wage, rate of minimum wage of skilled worker was Rs.2300/-. The learned Tribunal, for no reason has taken up meager amount of Rs.1500/- as income of the claimant to determine the loss of future prospect. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.2500/- is taken as income of the claimant. The claimant was 48 years old at the time of road accident and said fact has not been controverted by the other side. Therefore, in view of judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% rise is required to be given to the claimant for the loss of future prospect. Since the claimant was 48 years old at the time of road accident, multiplier of 13 would adopted. 20% disability has been accepted by the parties on their own volition and same has been considered as functional disability. For other heads, the claimant is entitled to get complainant for actual loss of income for six months i.e. Rs.2500 x 6 = Rs.15000/-. So far as medical expenses is concerned, the learned Tribunal found multiple discrepancies in the medical bills. For other heads, the claimant is entitled to get complainant for actual loss of income for six months i.e. Rs.2500 x 6 = Rs.15000/-. So far as medical expenses is concerned, the learned Tribunal found multiple discrepancies in the medical bills. However, while granting meager amount of Rs.10,000/-, the learned Tribunal failed to read endorsement made by learned advocate appearing for the insurance company below documentary evidence list at Exh.17, whereby all the medical bills have been admitted by the insurance company and also ordered to be exhibited. The medical bills in total are Rs.1,82,171/- 5.1 The claimant has suffered following injuries from road accident :- “(i) Compound shaft fame (ii) Compound seamental humous (iii) Operative scar over right hip 4 cm primarily healed (iv) Secondarily healed scar over right thigh (v) Operative scar lower than 10 cm (vi) Knee Mou: further not possible (vii) Washing over right leg” 6. As per discharge certificate issued by the VS Hospital, Ahmedabad (Exh.29), the claimant was inpatient for the period commencing from 5.1.2005 to 31.3.2005, so almost for two and half months, he was inpatient. In view of above, according to this Court, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of medical expenses and the same should be given of Rs.1,85,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant remained in the Hospital for about two months and considering the surrounding aspect and shortening of leg, it would meet the ends of justice if Rs.25000/- each towards pain, shock and suffering and special diet and transportation is granted. Since the claimant was 48 years old at the time of road accident, multiplier of 13 would adopted. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future loss of income 97,500/- (Rs.2500 + 25% rise =Rs.3125. 20% of 3125 = Rs.625 x 12 x 13 Pain, shock and suffering 25,000/- Actual loss of income 15,000/- Medical expenses 1,85,000/- Special diet, attendant charges, transportation 25,000/- Total… 3,47,500/- Less : Amount which is already awarded 78,800/- Additional amount which is awarded 2,68,700/- 7. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future loss of income 97,500/- (Rs.2500 + 25% rise =Rs.3125. 20% of 3125 = Rs.625 x 12 x 13 Pain, shock and suffering 25,000/- Actual loss of income 15,000/- Medical expenses 1,85,000/- Special diet, attendant charges, transportation 25,000/- Total… 3,47,500/- Less : Amount which is already awarded 78,800/- Additional amount which is awarded 2,68,700/- 7. What could be noticeable that the claimant is in own pleading has agreed that he has boarded in the offending vehicle jeep after fixing fare and therefore, it is established that the claimant was fare paying passenger travelling in a private care, which is being used as hire for reward and carrying passenger. The contract of policy on record is comprehensive policy and insured the vehicle, risk of the owner of vehicle is covered. In case of Dhirali (Minor) Vinodbhai Bist, Minor Through Father And Guardian Chandrasinh Alias Rambhai Rajput Versus Dhanabhai Raisibhai Bhardiya Ahir rendered in First Appeal No.1652 of 2019 and other allied matters, this Court after referring to various judgments, in para 12 and 13 passed the order of pay and recover. “12. The manifest object of the provisions of the MV Act is to ensure that the party, who suffers injuries due to the use of the motor cycle, and may be able to get the damages for the injuries sustained/death. If the private car is being used as hire for reward and carrying the passengers, against the insurance policy, as is in the case on hand, the claimants cannot suffer for the technicalities of whether the owner/insurance company should pay the amount. As the vehicle is insured with the insurance company, the insurance company shall first pay the compensation and it is for the insurance company to recover from the owner, if it so wishes. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the above decisions, these appeals are required to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the opponent no.3- insurance company shall first pay the compensation and it is for the insurance company to recover from the insured, if it so wishes. Rest of the judgment and award remains as it is. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the opponent no.3- insurance company shall first pay the compensation and it is for the insurance company to recover from the insured, if it so wishes. Rest of the judgment and award remains as it is. Modified decree be drawn accordingly.” 7.1 The ratio of aforestated judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of above, I pass following order:- 8.1 The first appeal is partly allowed. 8.2 The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the insurance company at the first instance shall pay and deposit amount of total compensation of Rs.3,47,500/- with 9% interest before the learned Tribunal within six weeks from today and it shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle on the strength of this judgment by executing it. 8.3 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants after fixing apportionment, if not already fixed, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 8.4 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. 8.5 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.