Arun Bhansali, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 26.07.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,14,800/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant and has awarded interest @ 10% per annum from 01.01.2000 to the date of actual payment. However, the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.

2. The application for compensation was filed by the appellant, inter alia, with the averments that he was aged 24 years and was studying in Class-10, was involved with the agricultural operations and manual labour. His income was Rs. 2,500/- per month. On 02.04.1998 at about 04:00 PM he was travelling in Jeep No. RJ-12/C-0923, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, the Jeep went out of control and turned turtle, resulting in injuries to the occupants of the Jeep. It was claimed that the appellant suffered injuries on his eyes, head, thigh, hip etc., wherein, he had fractures in his hip joint, pelvis bone, left thigh and toe. It was indicated that the appellant had to undergo surgery, remain hospitalized and confined to bed for long time and has been rendered partially disabled.

3. The application was contested by the non-claimants. The amount claimed as compensation was disputed. The Insurance Company filed its reply and disputed its liability. It was claimed that as the vehicle despite being a private vehicle was being used for hire and reward and passengers in excess of sitting capacity were travelling. There was violation of Policy conditions and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable.

4. On behalf of the claimant he himself along with his father appeared as witness and exhibited documents. No evidence was produced either by the owner or the Insurance Company.

5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. The appellant suffered four injuries in his left foot and there were three fractures and one dislocation. Qua the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal based on the contents of the FIR, came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward and on account of the fact that about 15 passengers were sitting in the Jeep, the Tribunal found violation of the Policy conditions and exonerated the Insurance Company. While calculating the quantum of compensation the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no proof qua the income of the appellant at Rs. 2,500/- per month. However, looking to his age, the income was assessed at Rs. 800/- per month and based on that compensation was awarded, whereby, the appellant was allowed compensation at Rs. 4,800/- towards loss of income for a period of six months, Rs. 3,000/- towards attendant expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 72,000/- towards future loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- towards the grievous injuries and in all a sum of Rs. 1,14,800/- was awarded along with interest as indicated hereinbefore.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in awarding meager compensation. It was submitted that the appellant was 24 years of age at the time of his accident and, therefore, the assessment of income at Rs. 800/- is too meager. It was submitted that even as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for non-earning member income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum is prescribed and, therefore, the Tribunal fell in error in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 800/- per month. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards physical pain, hospitalization expenses and nutritional diet. Further for the two inch shortening of left leg, no compensation has been awarded and, therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. It was further submitted that the T