N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.

1. How an accident can play havoc in the life of a person could be well understood by this case.

2. The first respondent, on 06.05.2004, travelled along with his mini fishing boat in a mini lorry. The driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and the lorry capsized. In the accident, the first respondent suffered injuries all over his body, especially in the spinal cord. He is unable to sit, walk and cannot attend his day-to-day works. He was immediately admitted in Thiraviam Orthopaedic Hospital, Nagercoil and thereafter, shifted to Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences, where he took prolonged treatment as inpatient. Because of the injuries, the claimant suffered 100% disability and therefore, filed a claim petition which was contested by the third respondent appellant. However, the Tribunal held that the second respondent driver was rash and negligent in driving the mini lorry and fastened the liability on the third respondent appellant to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) even though the Tribunal determined the compensation of Rs. 38,40,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Forty Thousand only), as the claim was restricted to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The said award of the Tribunal is being questioned by the Insurance Company, both on liability as well as quantum. The first respondent/claimant also filed a counter claim for enhancement.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the mini lorry is a goods carriage vehicle and the first respondent claimant is only an unauthorised passenger and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Secondly, he would find fault with the Tribunal for not giving any finding with regard to the plea of gratuitous passenger. Thirdly, he would submit that the Tribunal fixed an exorbitant amount of Rs. 20,000/- p.m in the absence of any material evidence in that regard. The appropriate multiplier 15' should have been fixed as per the judgment in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), whereas the Tribunal fixed multiplier 16' and Rs. 3,32,703/- awarded towards medical expenses is on the higher side. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the claimant only travelled as the owner of the goods in the mini lorry, as he carried his mini Yahama fishing boat after finishing his fishing voyage and the same is proved by the evidence of PW.1 as well as Ex.P1-FIR, apart from the report filed by the Insurance Company in Ex.R1. The claimant proved that the mini lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by examining himself as PW.1 and also through Ex.P1-FIR. Further it is reported in Ex.R1 namely the report of the appellant investigating officer along with annexure that the second respondent driver was accused in C.C.No.315 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri on 02.11.2004. Therefore, the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the second respondent was categorically proved by the claimant. Hence as insurer of the mini lorry, the Insurance Company was rightly fastened with the liability by the Tribunal. Further, he would submit that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the future prospects as the claimant was aged about 36 years at the time of accident. Therefore, he seeks to include future prospects. Even amounts under important heads were not awarded including the damage caused to the fishing boat. Though the claimant restricted his claim to Rs. 25,00,000/-, the Tribunal having found that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 41,72,103 apart from the compensation towards pain and sufferings and disability, the Tribunal should not have awarded only Rs. 25,00,000/-. Therefore, he seeks for enhancement. He relied