JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. These two appeals arise from the very same award dated 10.09.2007 in O.P.(MV) No.242 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. Hence, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.1658 of 2008 is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as challenging the liability imposed on the fourth respondent to indemnify the insured, whereas M.A.C.A.No.1519 of 2008 is filed by the 3rd respondent, Insurer challenging the award on the omission of the Tribunal, permitting the insurer to recover an amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited before the Tribunal as per the interim award passed under Section 140 of The Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 24.10.2003 at about 09.15 p.m., while the injured was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KRB-3076 through Ponkunnam, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep who is the first respondent, the vehicle turned turtle whereby the original claimant/injured sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.11,80,000/-. 3. The first, second and third respondents are the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, but later, it was found that the registered owner of the vehicle was Sri.Johnson.M.T and he was impleaded as additional fourth respondent. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first, second and fourth respondents remained absent and were set ex parte. The third respondent filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy, denying the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. The third respondent filed an additional written statement contending that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the policy was an ‘act only policy’ and no additional premium was paid to cover a gratuitous passenger. Hence contended that the second respondent is not liable to compensate the claimants. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8, Exts.B1 and B2 and Ext.X1 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.4,61,520/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs from the fourth respondent – the owner of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as exonerating the third respondent from liability to compensate the claimants, the claimants have come up in appeal and challenging the impugned award failing to direct the insurer to recover a sum of Rs.25,000/- which is deposited by the insurance company, the appellant/insurer has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. Since the original claimant is no more, additional claimants 2 to 6 were impleaded as the legal heirs. Adv. P.C.Haridas takes notice for additional appellants 2 to 6. During the pendency of the appeal, the original claimant passed away and the legal heirs are impleaded as the additional appellants 2 to 6. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has found that Ext.B1 policy was an ‘act only policy,’ and hence the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. It is further alleged that no consequential order was passed by the Tribunal enabling the insurer to recover Rs.25,000/- deposited by them in satisfaction of the interim award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “M.V. Act”) from the claimants or from the fourth respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/owner submitted that no appeal was maintainable against the payment made under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and hence the insurance company cannot claim return of the amount deposited under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. 7. Section 173 of the M.V. Act reads as follows: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court, unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty percent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than [one lakh] rupees. In the present case, the insurance company is aggrieved by the award, since there was no consequential order passed permitting the insurer to recover the amount deposited pursuant to the interim award passed by the tribunal, under Section 140 of the M.V. 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 141 of the M.V. Act reads as follows: (3) “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, the person liable to pay compensation under section 140 is also liable to pay compensation in accordance with the right on the principle of fault, the person so liable shall pay the first-mentioned compensation and— (a) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is less than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall be liable to pay (in addition to the first-mentioned compensation) only so much of the second-mentioned compensation as is equal to the amount by which it exceeds the first mentioned compensation; (b) if the amount of the first-mentioned compensation is equal to or more than the amount of the second-mentioned compensation, he shall not be liable to pay the second-mentioned compensation.” While passing the final award, the Tribunal had categorically found that the insurance company had no liability to pay the amount and the Tribunal ought to have granted the right to recover the amount deposited in satisfaction of the interim award passed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act to the insurer. Therefore, I find that the appeal filed by the insurer is maintainable before this court and the insurance company is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited as per the interim award passed by the Tribunal as per Section 140 of the M.V. Act from the claimants or from the 4 th respondent - owner. 9. The claimants have also challenged the exoneration of the insurer from the liability. Ext.B1, policy certificate reveals that the policy was an ‘act only policy’. On a perusal of the same, it is settled position that if the policy is an act only policy, the insurer cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the compensation amount. In New India Assurance Co. Ext.B1, policy certificate reveals that the policy was an ‘act only policy’. On a perusal of the same, it is settled position that if the policy is an act only policy, the insurer cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay the compensation amount. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul & Another [ 2021 (2) KHC 449 ], this Court elaborately considered the judgments of the apex court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 KHC 22], Jagdev Singh v. Sanjeev Kumar & others [2018 KHC 7138], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [ 2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)] and General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi and Others (2009 KHC 4326), and found that if the policy is “act only” policy and no additional premium is paid to cover the passengers of the vehicle, the policy will not cover the gratuitous passengers in the said vehicle and the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. Hence I hold that the Tribunal has rightly found that the policy being an act only policy the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the amount. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. The learned counsel for the claimants claims enhancement of compensation awarded mainly under the following heads: I. Notional Income The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though an amount of Rs.5,000/- was claimed as the notional income of the injured, who was a mason and a construction contractor, the Tribunal had taken only an amount of Rs.2,000/-. However, no documents were produced to prove the avocation nor the income. The learned counsel for the claimants 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 ought to have been taken at Rs.4,000, since the accident is of the year 2003. I find force in the said argument. Though no document has been produced to prove the income, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income of the Rs.injured at 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only). II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of 4 months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. Though no document has been produced to prove the income, I find it appropriate to re-fix the notional monthly income of the Rs.injured at 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only). II. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has taken only a period of 4 months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. The injuries sustained are as follows : “near total crush amputation left leg upper 3 rd with gross crushing of the leg up to the ankle with loss of neurovascular structure and gross contamination”. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of ten months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head would be just and reasonable. Since the notional monthly income has been re-fixed at Rs.4,000/-, the total compensation payable under the said head would be Rs.40,000/- (4,000 x 10). The Tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- under the said head. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs.32,000/-(Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Only) under the said head. III. Bystander expenses The Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards the head bystander expenses, as the injured required the assistance of a bystander for three months. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2003, I find that an amount of Rs.2500/- per month can be taken towards bystander expenses, totalling to Rs.7,500/-. Accordingly, the claimants will be entitled Rs.for an additional amount of 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards the afore head. IV. Pain and suffering: The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the afore head. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, I find it appropriate to enhance the total compensation payable under the said head at Rs.40,000/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) under the afore head. V. Loss of amenities in life The Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the afore head, which is on the lower side. Considering the age and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, I find that a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the said head would be just and reasonable. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) under the afore head. VI. Considering the age and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, I find that a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the said head would be just and reasonable. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) under the afore head. VI. Permanent disability The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had adopted the multiplier as “18” instead of “15”. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the injured was aged 38 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ 2017(4) KLT 662 (SC)], the multiplier to be adopted is “15” . Since the monthly income has been re-fixed at Rs.4,000/-, the total compensation payable under the afore head is recalculated thus: Rs.5,76,000 (4,000 x 12 x 15 x 80/100). The Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.3,07,200/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs.2,68,800/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Only) under the afore head. VII. Maintenance of artificial limb The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that though the injured had amputation of right leg, the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards procuring artificial limb. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that before the Tribunal, the injured had produced Ext.A8 to prove that he had purchased the artificial limb in the year 2003. On a perusal of Ext.A8, it is seen that the injured had purchased prosthesis for a total amount of Rs.72,844/- on 27.12.2003. In Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (2022 KHC 7267), it was held by the Apex court that “Since the appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. He must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain same at least till he has reached 70 years of age”. No other documents other than Ext.A8 were produced by the claimants. Considering the fact that he was alive till 2022 and the accident occurred in the year 2003, I find that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only) can be awarded towards the purchase of prosthesis. 11. No other documents other than Ext.A8 were produced by the claimants. Considering the fact that he was alive till 2022 and the accident occurred in the year 2003, I find that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Only) can be awarded towards the purchase of prosthesis. 11. Though the claimants sought enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeals are of the year 2008, I find it appropriate to fix the interest @ 7% p.a. on the enhanced compensation awarded in the appeal. 12. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Amount modi?ed in appeal (in Rs.) Total compensation 1 Medical expenses 90,070 - 90,070 2 Loss of earnings 8,000 32,000 40,000 3 Bystander expenses 4,500 3,000 7,500 4 Extra nourishment 500 (not modi?ed) 500 5 Damage to clothing 250 (not modi?ed) 250 6 Transport to hospital 1,000 (not modi?ed) 1,000 7 Pain and su?ering 25,000 15,000 40,000 8 Permanent partial disability resuting in loss of earning capacity 50,000 2,68,800 5,76,000 9 Loss of amenities 25,000 15,000 40,000 10 Maintenance of arti?cial limb 4,00,000 4,00,000 Total (claim limited to) 11,80,000 4,61,520 7,33,800 11,95,320 Accordingly, M.A.C.A.No.1519 of 2008 is allowed and M.A.C.A.No.1658 of 2008 is partially allowed. The appellants/claimants are awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 7,33,800/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Only) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost. The fourth respondent - owner 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 claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and Bank details before the Tribunal within a period of one month so as to enable the fourth respondent to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the fourth respondent to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the fourth respondent to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimants at the earliest, in accordance with law. The appellant/insurance company is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited as per the interim award passed by the Tribunal as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the claimants or from the 4 th respondent - owner. If the insurer is proceeding against the owner for recovery of the afore amount, then the owner will be liable to pay only the balance award to the claimant after deducting the afore Rs.25,000/-.