JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 09.09.2013 in O.P.(MV) No.377 of 2011 filed by the appellant/claimant on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.181 of 2014 is filed by the appellant/1st respondent, owner in the O.P seeking to set aside the award exonerating the insurer from the liability to pay compensation, whereas M.A.C.A.No.486 of 2014 is filed by the appellant/claimant in the O.P, seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. According to the petitioner/claimant, on 09.11.2010 at about 05.30 pm, while the petitioner was riding an autorickshaw, a jeep driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner has sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,35,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, entered appearance and filed a written statement disputing the maintainability of the petition. The 3rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and contending that the policy issued was a package policy. Before the tribunal, RW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from the 1st respondent-owner. Challenging the award passed, the claimant as well as the owner has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent/owner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :- Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. The learned counsel for the claimant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :- Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of a coolie during the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. It is true that the claimant had claimed only an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the income. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation and also following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I am inclined to refix the income of the appellant as Rs.7,500/-. Loss of earnings :- Since the notional monthly income is fixed at Rs.7,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: Rs.30,000/- (7,500x4). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of earnings. Damage to clothing :- Although the claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.500 under the above head, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.500/- can be granted towards damage to clothing. Bystander expenses :- The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the tribunal was awarded only an amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head bystander expenses. Since the accident was of the year 2010, I deem it appropriate to fix Rs.250 per day. Considering the fact that the appellant had undergone 19 days inpatient treatment, I find that the total compensation payable under the said head will come to Rs.4,750/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs.1,750/- under the head. Loss of amenities :- On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. Compensation for permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that as per Ext.A6 disability certificate, the disability of the petitioner was assessed as 13%. However, the tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 7%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. Compensation for permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that as per Ext.A6 disability certificate, the disability of the petitioner was assessed as 13%. However, the tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 7%. The tribunal, if it had any doubt, ought to have referred the appellant for further examination, but the tribunal has not done that. The reasoning of the tribunal for reducing the percentage of disability does not appear to be acceptable in view of the judgments of this Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair [ 2021(5) KHC 305 ] and Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [ 2011 (1) KLT 620 SC]. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to fix the percentage of disability at 13% as assessed in Ext.A6 disability certificate. Thus, the compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: Rs.1,28,700/- (7,500x12x11x13/100). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.46,200/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs.82,500/- under the said head. 6. On perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that there was suppression of material fact while taking the insurance policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. The vehicle involved in the accident was a jeep bearing registration No.KL-7-N-5859. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the owner submitted that the owner had purchased the vehicle in the year 2009, and the insurance policy was issued by the New India Assurance Company. Thereafter, he approached the 3 rd respondent/insurance company for a fresh policy. Accordingly, Ext.B3 policy was issued by the 3 rd respondent Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, valid from 12.01.2010 to 11.01.2011. According to the owner, at the time of taking the policy, the appellant had given RC particulars to the insurer for issuing the policy certificate. It was further submitted that though at the time of taking the fresh policy, the vehicle was a motor cab (taxi), the insurer after verifying the registration particulars had issued the insurance policy for a private vehicle and not as a motor cab (taxi). Thereafter, the vehicle was altered from motor cab (taxi) to a private vehicle on 03.09.2010 which is revealed as per Ext.B1 produced by the insurance company. Thereafter, the vehicle was altered from motor cab (taxi) to a private vehicle on 03.09.2010 which is revealed as per Ext.B1 produced by the insurance company. Therefore, according to the owner, the alteration was intimated to the respondent/insurer. 8. Per Contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that at the time of taking policy on 12.01.2010, the owner had suppressed the fact that the vehicle was a motor cab (taxi) and took the policy as a private vehicle. At the time of accident, the vehicle was admittedly a private vehicle after the alteration effected on 03.09.2010. Since there was suppression of material facts, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner for the loss sustained by the claimant as correctly found by the tribunal. 9. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 10. Before the tribunal, the insurance company has produced Exts.B1, B2 and B3 documents. Ext.B1 is the copy of certificate of registration after the alteration was effected, Ext.B2 is the copy of the registration certificate before the alteration was effected and Ext.B3 is the policy issued in respect of the vehicle. On a perusal of Ext.B2 produced by the insurer, it is seen that it was a motor cab (taxi) at the time of taking the policy. However, it is a fact that the copy of the RC was available with the insurance company. Admittedly, it was not a renewal policy. It was a fresh policy taken by the owner from the 3rd respondent insurance company. On perusal of Ext.B3 copy of the policy produced, it is seen that the policy is issued as private car package policy. It is true that at the time of issuance of the said policy, the vehicle was a motor cab (taxi) but the insurer themselves has issued the policy as a private car package policy. The details for the RC particulars have been shown in the policy document. Hence, the insurance company cannot take the contention that there was suppression of material facts at the time of taking the policy since the insurance company itself had produced a copy of the Registration Certificate which was produced by them before the tribunal. The owner was examined as RW1 before the tribunal. Hence, the insurance company cannot take the contention that there was suppression of material facts at the time of taking the policy since the insurance company itself had produced a copy of the Registration Certificate which was produced by them before the tribunal. The owner was examined as RW1 before the tribunal. He has clearly deposed that at the time of taking the policy, the insurance company has issued the policy for a private car and thereafter he had altered the RC to a private cab which was effected on 03.09.2010. During cross examination, no questions were put to RW1 by the insurer regarding the alleged suppression of facts at the time of taking the policy. Hence, it has to be presumed that the insurance company was aware at the time of issuance of the policy and the insurance company has knowingly issued the policy as a private car package policy. Hence, they cannot take the contention that there was suppression of material facts on the part of the owner while taking the policy. The accident occured on 09.11.2010 when the policy was valid. Prior to that the vehicle had been altered from a motor cab to a private car. It was the duty of the insurer to verify the documents submitted by the owner for taking out a new policy and to issue the policy accordingly. But for the documents, the owner cannot escape from suppression of facts. Under such circumstances, after issuance of the policy, the insurance company cannot turn around and say that there was suppression of material facts. The finding of the tribunal is not based on proper appreciation of the facts. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the exoneration of the insurance company from the liability is legally unsustainable. The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner and is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant in this case. 11. Since the appeal is of the year 2014, I find it appropriate to refix the interest @7% per annum for the enhanced amount. 12. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows : Sl. 11. Since the appeal is of the year 2014, I find it appropriate to refix the interest @7% per annum for the enhanced amount. 12. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows : Sl. No Head of Claim Amount claimed Amount awarded by the tribunal Modi?ed in appeal Total compensation 1 Loss of earnings 15,000 20,000 10,000 30,000 2 Transportation 5,000 2,000 (not modi?ed) 2,000 3 Extra nourishment 3,500 1,000 (not modi?ed) 1,000 4 Damages to clothings 500 Nil 500 500 5 Treatment expenses 60,000 51,750 (not modi?ed) 51,750 6 Bystander expenses 6,000 3,000 1,750 4,750 7 Pain and su?erings 25,000 25,000 (not modi?ed) 25,000 8 Permanent disability 80,000 46,200 82,500 1,28,700 8 Loss of amenities 25,000 Nil 25,000 25,000 TOTAL 2,35,000 1,48,950 rounded to 1,49,000 1,19,750 2,68,700 Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed in part and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.1,19,750/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand seven hundred and fifty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent - insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent- insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimant at the earliest in accordance with law. It is made clear that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation awarded by the tribunal as well as the compensation now enhanced by this Court.