K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The claimant in O.P. (MV) No.327 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha is the appellant herein. The claim petition was filed by the claimant for compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.11.2000. The case of the appellant in the claim petition was that he was travelling in a motor bike with No.KL6-7821. When it reached the place of occurrence, a jeep bearing No.KL6-555 came from the opposite direction, driven by the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent hit against his bike and caused severe injuries to him. He was a fish vendor by profession and aged 52 years at the time of accident. He was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,500/. He suffered permanent disability thereby he could not attend his work. So, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- on various heads.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

3. The third respondent filed written statement and additional written statement contending that the vehicle was insured with them at the relevant time but they denied negligence on the part of the second respondent. According to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant himself. Further, the vehicle was insured in the name of the first respondent but he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and the second respondent was the owner and this fact was suppressed by the first respondent. So, the policy is ab initio void. The transfer of ownership of the vehicle was not reported to the insurer. So, they are not liable to indemnify the insured. They also contended that the amount claimed is exorbitant. They denied the occupation, income, disability, etc. alleged by the appellant in the claim petition. So, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Doctor who treated the appellant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 documents were marked on the side of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on the side of the respondents. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,17,700 on various heads as follows:-

Transport to hospital	Rs. 6,000/-
Loss of earnings	Rs. 2,000/-
Medical expenses	Rs. 61,350/-
Damage to clothing	Rs. 250/-
Extra nourishment	Rs. 700/-
Bystander's expenses	Rs. 2700/-
Pain and suffering	Rs. 15,000/-
Disability and loss of earning power	Rs. 29,700/-
Total	Rs. 1,17,700/-

5. Relying on the decision reported in Rikhi Ram and another v. Sukhrania and others (2003 ACJ 534) the Tribunal held that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount but they can recover the amount either from the insured or the transferee of the vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and also the finding of the Tribunal regarding the liability of the insurance company, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal.

6. Heard Shri John Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S. Jiji, learned counsel for the second respondent and Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the third respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the injured as Rs.2,000/- for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head loss of earning but at the same time took only Rs.1,500/- for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head permanent disability which is unsustainable in law. Further, the Tribunal had not taken into consideration future prospects. The Tribunal had only taken 27 days as period of inpatient treatment whereas he had undergone inpatient treatment for 44 days on two occasions whic