JUDGMENT
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. It is further prayed that the insurance company be also made liable to pay the compensation. Cross-objection is also filed by the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 1, praying therein that the insurance company be held liable to pay the compensation.
2. Claims Tribunal has held that it is not proved that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company.
3. Much has been argued by the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent owner that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and in support of their contention appellant as well as respondent No. 1 have filed various documents along with an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. For deciding the question involved in the case, both the applications are allowed and the documents are taken on record. We have perused the documents filed by the appellant as well as owner, respondent No. 1. The appellant has filed photocopy of the certificate of registration. On perusal of the document, it is apparent that the registration number of the vehicle which was involved in the accident is MP 06-E 0023 and the engine number of the said vehicle is mentioned as 4973P21577288, whereas in the copy of the cover note filed by appellant the engine number is described as 497SP21577288. Owner of the vehicle has also filed copy of the cover note to prove that the vehicle was insured. In this cover note also, engine number is mentioned as 497SP21577288. Certified copy of the policy produced before the Claims Tribunal also discloses the engine number of the vehicle insured as 497SP21577288. Thus, it is apparent that vehicle was insured having the aforesaid engine number and not for the engine number mentioned in certificate of registration. Engine number mentioned in the certificate of registration is 4973P21577288. Burden was upon the owner to enter the witness-box and prove that the insurance policy relates to the vehicle involved in the accident. Owner did not enter the witness-box for the reasons best known to him. Once the insurance company has taken a specific plea that the vehicle was not insured with them, then burden was upon the owner of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle was insured. It is found at number of times that owners do not enter the witness-box thinking that the liability will be borne by the insurance company. This practice is to be deprecated.
4. Considering the facts of the case, we hold that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured as owner of the vehicle has failed to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the insurance company.
5. As regards quantum of compensation is concerned, Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that twenty per cent partial disability is suffered by appellant, however, it has applied the multiplier of five only which is not correct. Here in this appeal, certificate of income is filed by the appellant for the month of March, 1993 and the income is shown as Rs. 3,590. Appellant remained on leave between 11.12.1992 and 4.3.1993. Considering the income certificate, it can safely be presumed that the appellant was getting around Rs. 3,600 per month, therefore, his yearly income was Rs. 43,200. Injured was 52 years of age, therefore, multiplier of 11 will be applicable to this figure and the compensation comes to Rs. 4,75,200. Since the appellant had suffered twenty per cent disability, therefore, twenty per cent of the amount comes to Rs. 95,040. Over and above this amount, appellant will also be entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000 on account of grievous injuries suffered by him, Rs. 5,785 towards medical bills and Rs. 5,000 towards food and conveyance to the hospital. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,10,825 (rupees one lakh ten thousand eight hundred and twenty-five). Over and above, appellant will also be entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal. Interim amount deposited by the insurance company may be recovered by it from the owner of the vehicle.
6. In the result, appeal succeeds in part and is allowed as indicated above. Cross-objection filed by the owner of the vehicle is dismissed.