JUDGMENT : (UMESH M. ADIGA, J.) All these appeals arises out of common accident. MFA No.5006/2014 and 4853/2014 are filed by the claimant as well as insurer against judgment and award dated 25.03.2014 passed in MVC No.529/2012 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna. MFA No.8274/2014 is filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging judgment and award dated 02.09.2014 passed in MVC No.338/2012, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna. Legal heirs of deceased inmate of the car filed MVC No.338/2012; injured inmate of the offended case filed MVC No.529/2012. Both the cases were disposed by different MACTs. Since both cases arise out of common accident, all these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. Though these appeals are slated for admission, with the consent of both the sides, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.2012 petitioner in MVC No.529/2012 by name Ningaraju @ Lingaraju @ Swamy and deceased-Bandigaiah were traveling in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-ME-5333. Driver of the said car was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at Maralagala on Bannur Srirangapatna Road, resulting in capsizing of the vehicle. As a result of which, the claimant in MVC No.529/2012 i.e., Ningaraju sustained grievous injuries. The said Bandigaiah also sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. There was also another person in the car by name Ramesh he had also sustained injuries. 4. It is further case of the claimant in MVC No.529/2012 that he sustained a fracture of left radius and underwent surgery, spending more than Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. He was aged about 25 years at the time of accident, was an agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has been suffering from permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award the compensation of Rs.15,40,000/-. 5. He was aged about 25 years at the time of accident, was an agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has been suffering from permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award the compensation of Rs.15,40,000/-. 5. The legal heirs of Bandigaiah i.e., his wife and children filed MVC No.338/2012 contending that deceased was aged about 55 years and he was an agriculturist and was also taking contract of cutting sugarcane crops and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. He was maintaining the family; due to his untimely death, the claimants have been suffering. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.35,10,000/-. 6. Both respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement before the Tribunal. Contentions of respondents in both the claim petitions are more or less similar, wherein respondent No.1 denied the contentions of both the claim petitions and contended that claimants are not entitled for any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the same. 7. Respondent No.2-insurer in the written statement filed in both cases has denied the contentions of the claim petitions and further stated that there was an Act policy, which does not cover the risk involved in the present accident. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 8. Both MACT recorded evidence of the parties. In MVC No.529/2012 the claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and marked 13 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.13. Respondents examined 1 witness as RW.1 and marked 1 document as Ex.R.1. In MVC No.338/2012 the claimants to prove their case examined 2 witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 7 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.7. Respondents examined 1 witness as RW.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.2. 9. The Tribunal in MVC No.529/2012 after hearing both the parties held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car, by its driver. The Tribunal assessed income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- p.m., and disability at 5% to the whole body and applied multiplier as ‘18’ and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,11,600/- on all the heads by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2014. The Tribunal considering the contention of the parties, directed respondent No.2-insurer to pay the compensation. The Tribunal assessed income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- p.m., and disability at 5% to the whole body and applied multiplier as ‘18’ and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,11,600/- on all the heads by the impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2014. The Tribunal considering the contention of the parties, directed respondent No.2-insurer to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, both the claimants as well as insurer preferred the above said two appeals. 10. The Tribunal in MVC No.338/2012 considering the contentions of the parties held that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the car and the Tribunal determined the age of the deceased as 55 years, applied multiplier as ‘11’, taken income as Rs.5,000/- p.m., and deducted 1/3 rd of income towards personal expenses of deceased and awarded the compensation under different heads. The same is challenged by the owner of the vehicle on the ground that in the cross- examination of PW-1, she has stated that her husband was elder to her by 15 years. On that basis, respondent contends that deceased was aged about 65 years and the Tribunal ought to have calculated the compensation taking the age of the deceased as 65 years. Therefore, it erred in taking the age of the deceased as 55 years on the basis of postmortem report. Hence, prays to recalculate the amount of compensation. 11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. 12. The following questions are arises for my consideration; "1. Whether Claimant in MVC No.529/2012 is entitled for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in taking the age of deceased as 55 years instead of 65 years as contended in MVC No.338/2012? 3. Whether respondent No.2-insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in MVC No.529/2012? 4. What order?" Re: Point Nos.1 & 3:- 13. In this case, the owner has not disputed the fact of the accident or the injury sustained by the claimant in MVC No.529/2012. Medical evidence supports the contention of the claimant that he sustained fracture of the redial head and left elbow. PW-2 in his evidence stated that the claimant underwent surgery on 20.01.2012 and taken further treatment. In this case, the owner has not disputed the fact of the accident or the injury sustained by the claimant in MVC No.529/2012. Medical evidence supports the contention of the claimant that he sustained fracture of the redial head and left elbow. PW-2 in his evidence stated that the claimant underwent surgery on 20.01.2012 and taken further treatment. The medical records are produced at Exs.P.5 and P.7 to P.11; they corroborate the injuries sustained by the claimant, treatment taken by him and also disability suffered by the claimant. These facts were discussed in detail by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no need to reproduce the said evidence. 14. The Tribunal has taken income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- p.m., which is on lower side. Since there were no reliable evidence, Tribunal assessed notional income of claimant as Rs.4,500/- p.m. If the chart of Notional income prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, is considered then the notional income of the relevant period is Rs.7,000/-; same could be applied to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards 'loss of amenities'. The Tribunal has calculated compensation taking income of claimant as Rs.4,500/- p.m. Now it is reassessed as Rs.7,000/-p.m. Hence, compensation needs recalculation Accordingly, the following amount of compensation is awarded. Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.13,000/- 3. Special diet, attendant charges and conveyance charges Rs.20,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period (7,000X3) Rs.21,000/- 5. Loss of future income due to permanent disability (7,000X12X18X5%) Rs.75,600/- 6. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.1,79,600/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,11,600/- Enhancement(Rs.1,79,600-Rs.1,11,600) Rs.68,000/- 15. Undisputedly, the claimant was inmate of the car. The policy of insurance has been produced by respondent No.2- insurer at Ex.R.1. RW.1 has appeared and stated that it was an Act policy and no additional premium has been paid by the claimant for covering the risk of inmates of the vehicle. Therefore, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay the compensation. The said contention of the claimant is tenable. Hence, respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal, though noted this fact but directed both respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation. The said finding is erroneous. For the aforesaid reasons, question No.1 is partly answered in the affirmative and question No.3 is answered in the affirmative. The said contention of the claimant is tenable. Hence, respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal, though noted this fact but directed both respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation. The said finding is erroneous. For the aforesaid reasons, question No.1 is partly answered in the affirmative and question No.3 is answered in the affirmative. Re: Point No.2:- 16. In this case the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Respondent No.1-owner has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment only on the ground that age of the deceased should have been taken as 65 years instead of 55 years. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that in the claim petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1, age of the deceased is stated 55 years. In her cross- examination, she pleads ignorance about age of her husband as 65 years, at the time of accident. However, in her further cross- examination, she has stated that her husband was elder to her by 15 years. PW.1 has mentioned her age as 50 years in the affidavit evidence and on that basis, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle calculated the age of the deceased as 65 years. 18. It is true that, PW.1 in her evidence stated age of the deceased as 55 years and in her cross-examination, she also admitted that deceased was elder to her by 15 years. She has not produced any evidence regarding date of birth of the deceased. The postmortem report as well as the inquest Mahazar reveals that the deceased was aged about 55 years. PW.1 is an illiterate and rustic villager. When it was suggested to her during cross-examination that the deceased was aged about 55 years, she pleads ignorance. Her statement that her husband was elder to her by 15 years cannot be accepted as a sufficient reason to determine the age of the deceased as 65 years. There is reliable materials on record that is postmortem report as well as inquest Mahazar, wherein the doctor has opined that age of the deceased was 55 years and the Mahazar witnesses also opined that age of the deceased was 55 years, same was accepted by the Tribunal. I do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. Therefore, said contention of the appellants is not tenable. I do not find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. Therefore, said contention of the appellants is not tenable. For the aforesaid discussions, Point No.2 is answered in the Negative. 19. From the reasons discussed above, I pass following: ORDER i. MFA No.5006/2014 as well as MFA No.4853/2014 are allowed in part. ii. MFA No.8274/2014 stands dismissed. iii. The impugned judgment and award passed in MVC 529/2012 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapatna, dated 25.03.2014 is modified; (a) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.68,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till its realization. iv. Respondent No.1–owner of the vehicle shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v. The claim petition against respondent No.2 is dismissed. Whatever amount deposited by respondent No.2-insurer shall be refunded to the insurance company on due acknowledgment. vi. The amount of compensation is meager. Therefore, entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification. vii. Judgment and award passed in MVC No.338/2012 dated 02.09.2012 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Srirangapattana is confirmed. viii. Whatever amount deposited by the owner shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.