JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. 1. MFA No.20278/2013 is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.09.2012 passed in MVC No.2617/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, v seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Whereas, MFA Nos.20634 and 20635 of 2013 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.09.2012 passed in MVC Nos.2617/2010 and 980/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, questioning the liability fastened on it to pay compensation. 3. It is the case of claimant that the claimant-Manjula was waiting for the bus to go to her village Chikkoppa and claimant-Mallavva was travelling in the Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-28/M-851 and claimant- Shivabasappa was traveling in Cruiser bearing Registration No.KA-06/A-3611 and the drivers of both vehicles came in opposite directions to each other and dashed together and caused the accident. Therefore, the claimants sustained injuries. 4. Upon the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Tribunal while awarding compensation held that the accident was caused entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax bearing Registration No.KA-28/M-851. Thus, it was held that the owner and insurer of the Tempo Trax are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and exonerated the owner and insurer of the Cruiser vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-06/A-3611. 5. The claimant-Manjula has preferred appeal in MFA No.20278/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation. Whereas, the insurer of the Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No.KA-28/M-8581 has preferred appeals in MFA Nos.20634 and 20635 of 2013 on the ground that the insurance policy is an ‘Act Policy’, but the claimants Manjula and Mallavva were travelling as occupants in the Tempo Trax. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, but the owner of the Tempo Trax alone is liable to pay compensation. 6. Ex.P-1 is FIR and complaint; Ex.P-2 is statement of one Rudrappa Budhihal; Ex.P-3 is spot panchanama; Ex.P-4 is the IMV report; Ex.P-5 is charge sheet; Ex.P-6 is copy of statement of claimant-Manjula. 7. Upon perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record, it is established that the entire allegation of rash and negligent driving pertains to the driver of Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-28/M-851. It is alleged that the said accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of Tempo Trax. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed only against the driver of the said Tempo Trax. It is alleged that the said accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of Tempo Trax. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed only against the driver of the said Tempo Trax. It is also proved that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Cruiser Jeep bearing No.KA-06 A-3611. Hence only the driver of Tempo Trax No.KA-28 M- 5851 has been arrayed as the accused in charge sheet. 8. Ex. P6 is statement of claimant-Manjula, in which, she clearly states that she was waiting for a bus with intention of returning to her village. In contrast, Ex. P7—Wound Certificate of Mallawwa demonstrates that Mallawwa was travelling as passenger in the Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-28/M-851, on her way to her own village. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said Tempo Trax driver, the accident occurred. Therefore, in light of foregoing evidence, it is conclusively established that the accident was caused entirely by the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-28/M-851.” 9. Ex.R1 is copy of insurance policy pertaining to the said Tempo Trax. It is an admitted fact that it is a "Liability Only Policy”. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of Tempo Trax No.KA-28 M-851, as the said insurance policy does not cover occupants of the vehicle. 10. This Court, in the case of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others Vs. Shamaraya and Others, MANU/KA/4690/2020 , has held that occupants of a car or jeep are not considered as third parties. Hence, under the “Liability Only Policy” or “Act Policy” the risk of occupants is not covered. In the present case, the claimants Manjula and Mallavva were occupants of the said Tempo Trax and not third parties. Therefore, only the owner of vehicle is liable to pay compensation. In view of the discussion made above, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed. The liability fastened upon the Insurance Company by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The owner of Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-28/M-851 is alone liable to pay compensation. 11. As regards to MVC No.981/2011, claimant-Shivabasappa, who was an occupant in the cruiser vehicle bearing No. KA-06 A-3611, is considered as a third party in relation to the said Tempo Trax. The owner of Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-28/M-851 is alone liable to pay compensation. 11. As regards to MVC No.981/2011, claimant-Shivabasappa, who was an occupant in the cruiser vehicle bearing No. KA-06 A-3611, is considered as a third party in relation to the said Tempo Trax. Therefore, the insurer of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-28 M-851 is liable to pay compensation to claimant-Shivabasappa. i) In MFA No.20278/2013 (MVC No.2617/2010) 12. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries. “Fracture of the right neck humerus, fracture of L/3 on right side.” 13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: S. No. Heads. Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 45,000/- 2. Medicine and hospital charges Rs. 5,530/- 3. Nourishment charges Rs. 5,000/- 4. Attendant and Conveyance Rs. 5,000/- 5. Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 18,000/- 6 Loss of future income Rs. 49,000/- 7. Loss of amenities, future unhappiness Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 1,67,530/- 14. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, compensation awarded by tribunal is lesser side. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by modifying the judgment and award. 15. The doctor-PW.4, who examined the claimant, has assessed permanent physical disability at 15% in the right upper limb and 10% at the L3 vertebra. However, the Tribunal considered only 11%, which is on the lower side. Therefore, considering the evidence of the doctor- PW.4, 15% functional disability is taken into consideration as the claimant had suffered grievous injuries i.e., Fracture of the right neck humerus, fracture of L/3 on right side. 16. The accident is caused in the year 2010.Therefore, notional income of Rs.5,500/- per month is taken into consideration, which is recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 35 years old at the time of accident. Therefore appropriate applicable multiplier is 16. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is hereby reassessed as Rs.1,58,400/- (Rs.5,500/-x 15% x 12 x 16). 17. The compensation awarded under other heads by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference of this Court. Therefore, only the compensation towards loss of future income due to disability is enhanced. 18. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: S. No. Heads. Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 45,000/- 2. Therefore, only the compensation towards loss of future income due to disability is enhanced. 18. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: S. No. Heads. Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs. 45,000/- 2. Medicine and hospital charges Rs. 5,530/- 3. Nourishment charges Rs. 5,000/- 4. Attendant and Conveyance Rs. 5,000/- 5. Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 18,000/- 6 Loss of future income due to disability Rs. 1,58,400/- 7. Loss of amenities, future unhappiness Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 2,81,930/- 19. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,81,930/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.1,67,530/- awarded by the Tribunal. 20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : i) The appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed. ii) The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. iii) The common judgment and award dated26.09.2012 passed in MVC Nos.2617/2010 and 980/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bailhongal, stands modified holding that owner of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No. KA-28/M-851 is alone liable to pay compensation to the claimant. iv) The claimant in MFA No.20278/2013 (MVC No.2617/2010) is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,81,930/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.1,67,530/- awarded by the Tribunal. v) The liability fastened on the Insurance Company is set aside. vi) The owner-respondent No.1 shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in both the cases. vii) Send a copy of this judgment and award along with TCR to the Tribunal. viii) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. ix) No order as to costs. x) Draw award accordingly.