JUDGMENT : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 1. MFA No.94/2015 is filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’ for short), by the Oriental Insurance Company to allow the present appeal and modify the judgment and award dated 16.09.2014 passed in MVC No.860/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Udupi (‘the Tribunal’ for short). MFA No.2668/2015 is filed under section 173(1) of the MV Act to allow the appeal and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.94/2015. 2. The appellant in MFA No.94/2015 is the respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal and respondents No.2 to 4 herein are the respondents No.1 to 3 before the Tribunal. The appellant/respondents in MFA No.2668/2015 herein are the claimant/respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The claim petition is filed under section 166 of the MV Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.22,10,420/- towards the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor vehicle accident. The brief facts of the case are that. 4. On 26.09.2009, the claimant was traveling beside his father, who was driving lorry No.KA-20-987 from Kozhikode to Udupi, when a goods vehicle bearing No.KL-11-B-4013, allegedly driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, swerved to the right and dashed with their lorry. The father of the claimant died at the spot and the claimant suffered grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Calicut Government Hospital and claims loss of income, medical expenses and loss of future earning capacity. 5. The respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed a written statement denying the allegations and contending that the petition is false, frivolous, vexatious, and unsustainable in law and on facts. The respondent No.2 appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement, while respondent No.3, though served with summons, remained absent and was placed ex parte. 6. The respondent No.4 filed a written statement asserting that the petition is not maintainable and contains false claims, though it admitted that the insurance policy for the vehicle was valid at the time of the accident. It further contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident, and therefore the insurer is not liable. It further contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident, and therefore the insurer is not liable. The respondent No.4 also filed an application under Section 170 of the MV Act and sought dismissal of the petition. 7. In order to substantiate the claim the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and one other as PW-2 and got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P-1 to P-12. The respondents have not examined and not marked any document as witness. 8. On careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal framed the issues and the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,65,920/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Further, respondents No.1 and 2 are exonerated from the liability and the respondents No.3- Smt.Farzana and 4-Oriental Insurance Company i.e., the owner of the lorry No.KA-20-987, and the Insurer were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA No.94/2015 would contend that the learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidentiary record and proceeded on erroneous assumptions regarding the claimant’s status in the insured vehicle. The material on record, including the claimant’s own documents, does not establish that he was employed as a cleaner and the Tribunal overlooked inconsistencies that demonstrate he was traveling unauthorised in a goods vehicle. 10. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in classifying the claimant as a third party, notwithstanding his having stepped into the shoes of his deceased father as one of the owner of the lorry in question along with his mother as legal representative. Such misclassification has improperly disentitled him to the third-party compensation. It is also submitted that the amounts awarded under the various heads are exorbitant, unsupported by any documentary evidence and disproportionate to the pleadings and proof on record. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing or respondent No.1 herein/claimant in MFA No.94/2015 , that during arguments on 10.11.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant–Oriental Insurance Company, fairly conceded that, as the insurer had neither adduced evidence nor examined any witness in support of its defence, the appeal may be dismissed and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be confirmed. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 26.09.2009, that the police investigation culminated in a charge sheet against the driver of lorry bearing reg. No.KA-20-987, and that the insurer has not challenged the same. 12. The insurer has also not rebutted, by any cogent material, the claimant’s assertion that he was working as a cleaner in the said lorry, whereas the police records and Exs.P1 to P3 clearly establish that the accident resulted from the negligent driving of the lorry bearing reg. No.KA-20-987. In view of the MV Act being a beneficial legislation requiring application of the principle of preponderance of probability, the Tribunal rightly fastened liability on the appellant and rightly awarded compensation. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.2668/2015 would contend seeking enhancement of compensation. Having sustained multiple grievous injuries, including operated comminuted open mid-third fracture of the right femur, operated fracture of the right patella, fracture of the right medial malleolus and fracture of the right talus. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing disability at only 13% despite PW-2, the treating doctor, certifying 29% as per Ex.P10, which remained unchallenged in cross-examination. It is further urged that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income at Rs.4,000/-, ignoring the claimant’s uncontroverted assertion of earning Rs.200/- per day (Rs.6,000/- per month) and the income chart of the Legal Services Authority. 14. It is further argued that although 173 medical bills amounting to Rs.2,80,570/- were produced under Ex.P7, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,26,000/-, without assigning any reasons, warranting grant of the full amount. It is also contended that having been an inpatient for more than three months with four fractures, the compensation awarded under the heads of amenities, pain and suffering and loss of income during the laid-up period is inadequate. Specifically, under Lok Adalat norms, pain and suffering ought to be quantified at Rs.15,000/- per fracture, totalling Rs.60,000/-, and the laid-up period requires upward revision in view of evidence of PW-2. 15. In light of the nature of the injuries, prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgeries, continuous treatment and unrebutted medical and income evidence, the appellant submits that the assessment made by the Tribunal is erroneous and warrants appropriate enhancement under all relevant heads. 16. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record. 17. 15. In light of the nature of the injuries, prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgeries, continuous treatment and unrebutted medical and income evidence, the appellant submits that the assessment made by the Tribunal is erroneous and warrants appropriate enhancement under all relevant heads. 16. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record. 17. On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.94/2015 failed to substantiate their grounds of appeal and also their prayer to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 18. In so far as MFA No.2668/2015 filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is concerned, the appellant failed to substantiate the grounds urged in the appeal for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned Award and awarded a sum of Rs.4,65,920/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., which is just and reasonable. Hence, there are no merits to interfere with the impugned Award. Hence, the following order is passed: i) MFA No.94/2015 is dismissed. ii) MFA No.2668/2015 filed by the claimant is also dismissed. iii) The Judgment and Award dated 16.09.2014 passed in MVC No.860/2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Udupi, is affirmed. iv) Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this Judgment and Award. v) Claimant is directed to withdraw the amount in terms of the Award. vi) Amount in deposit, if any, along with accrued interest shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. v) Registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.