JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J : Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed questioning the Judgment and award passed in MVC.289/05 by the MACT and Fast Track Court-Ill, Raichur, whereunder the claimant had sought for total compensation of Rs.2.05 lakhs against which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,500/- and held that the claimant was entitled for only 50% of the said amount by fixing contributory negligence on the appellant to the extent of 50%. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of the same and also questioning the finding of the Tribunal in fixing 50% contributory negligence on him. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are: a) That on 20.1.2005, the appellant was riding a motorcycle along with pillion rider, Sri. Shivaraj on Devadurga-Jalahalil Road near Karigudda Cross at 11.30 a.m., and while proceeding so, a jeep bearing No.KA-36-3688 came from the opposite side, i.e. Jalahalli side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA-09-3-2352 on account of which the claimant and pillion rider sustained injuries. Towards the said injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant sought for compensation before the Tribunal. b) On service of notice before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 appeared and were represented by their respective advocates, but did not choose to file written statement. However, the 3 respondent-insurer filed its detailed written statement denying that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by the 1st respondent/driver and further averred that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself and as such, denied the claim for compensation. The claimant got examined himself and the doctor who treated him, namely PW3 was also examined and got marked Exs.Pl to P19. The respondent did not examine any person as its witness and got marked Ex.R1 driving licence endorsement of the respondent. On framing 0~ issues, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred, but the claimant himself had contributed to it to an extent of 50% and as such, while awarding compensation of Rs.60,500/-, restricted it to Rs.30,250/- payable by the insurer. On framing 0~ issues, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred, but the claimant himself had contributed to it to an extent of 50% and as such, while awarding compensation of Rs.60,500/-, restricted it to Rs.30,250/- payable by the insurer. This finding is now under challenge in this appeal apart from seeking enhancement. 4. I have heard Sri Basavaraj R.Math learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri Sudarshan M., learned advocate appearing for the 3 respondent insurance company. Insofar as respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, this Court by order of even date has dispensed with notice at the risk of the appellant by way of a separate order. 5. It is the contention of Sri Basavaraj R.Math appearing for the claimant that Tribunal misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant by relying upon Ex. P5, IMV report and it erred in not considering the fact-that-the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the pt respondent-driver of the jeep. It is his contention that once FIR is registered, the same has to be forwarded by the police officer to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction, as per sub-section (6) Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act; on receipt of such information, the Claims Tribunal should treat the same as claim petition as per sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the said Act, and compensation should be awarded; the Tribunal should not traverse beyond what has been forwarded, and the contents of the same are deemed to be proved. Elaborating his submissions on these grounds, Sri. Basavaraj would contend that Ex.P1-F1R and Ex.P3-charge sheet clearly go to show that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep as recorded therein, and as such, the Tribunal was in error in fastening contributory negligence on the claimant to the extent of 50%, and hence, he seeks setting, aside the award of the Tribunal to that extent. 6. It is further submitted by Sri Basavaraj Math that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and it has erred in not taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered, amount spent by the claimant, pain and agony undergone and laid-up period which resulted in loss of income and as such, seeks enhancement of compensation. 6. It is further submitted by Sri Basavaraj Math that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and it has erred in not taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered, amount spent by the claimant, pain and agony undergone and laid-up period which resulted in loss of income and as such, seeks enhancement of compensation. He contends that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and also seeks grant of compensation on all these grounds. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri Sudarshan would vehemently urge that looking at the documents produced namely, Ex. P5 (IMV report) and the damage caused to both the vehicles, it clearly shows that the accident was a head-on collision and thus, the Tribunal was fully justified in arriving at the conclusion. That the claimant also contributed to the mishap. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the amount payable to him to the extent of 50% of the amount awarded. He further submits the claimant did not possess driving licence and as such a false claim had been made before the Tribunal against the insurer of jeep. He also supports the award of the Tribunal in arriving at just and reasonable compensation and submits it does not call for enhancement at the hands of this Court. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points arise: 1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in examining the cause of accident on the basis of available records? Or Should the Tribunal ought to have proceeded only on the basis of FIR in view of sub-section (4) of Section 166, M.V. Act? 2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in restricting the compensation awarded to the extent of 50% on the ground that the claimant had contributed negligence to that extent? 3) Whether the compensation' awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, or requires enhancement? If yes, to what extent? 4) What order? 9. Reg. Point No. (1): Motor Vehicles act being a social beneficial legislation, certain provisions came to be introduced to remove certain disparities in the liability and it is in this background that sub-section (4) of Section 166 as also clause (6) of Section 158 came Lo be substituted by Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. 9. Reg. Point No. (1): Motor Vehicles act being a social beneficial legislation, certain provisions came to be introduced to remove certain disparities in the liability and it is in this background that sub-section (4) of Section 166 as also clause (6) of Section 158 came Lo be substituted by Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. It would be necessary to extract the said provision for purposes of consideration of the said submission and accordingly, it is extracted below: Section 166. Application for compensation: (1)... (2)... (3)... (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application under this Act. Section 158. Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases: 1)... 2)... 3). 4) 5)... 6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within 30 days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, h" shall also within 30 days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and insurer. While having a cursory look at these two provisions, it is evident that a duty has been cast on police officers to forward information which is recorded by them within 30 days to the Jurisdictional Claims Tribunal as also insurer, under sub-section (6) of Section 158, M.V. Act. The Tribunal is empowered to treat such report as an application for compensation and proceed to examine it on merits. However, this does not put any fetters on the Claims Tribunal for examining the said report after treating it as a claim application on merits. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Claims Tribunal should blind foldedly accept the report forwarded by the police as gospel truth. The report which is treated as claim petition only enables the Tribunal to examine it on merits de hors non-filing of the claim petition by the injured or the legal heirs of the deceased. The report which is treated as claim petition only enables the Tribunal to examine it on merits de hors non-filing of the claim petition by the injured or the legal heirs of the deceased. As such it cannot be inferred that the Tribunal need not go into the merits of the claim petition and it should accept the report at its face value. Hence, this contention raised by the claimant requires to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected by holding that Tribunal was correct in examining cause of the accident on the basis of material available before it. It is also held that Tribunal on receipt of report under Section 166(4) is expected to go into merits of the claim by examining it and also consider all other evidence that may be brought before it and it need not restrict itself only to the contents of such report by ignoring the merits of such report or merits of the claim. The receipt of the report by Tribunal only ignites the cause before the Tribunal. 10. Reg Point No. (2): Insofar as fixing negligence on the claimant to the extent of 50% is concerned, the Tribunal has based its reasoning on the IMV report which is marked as Ex.P5. The certified copy of Ex.P5 was made available to this Court during the course of argument and as observed by the Tribunal itself, it is found that the damage caused to both the vehicles is depicted in the said report. Admittedly, the width of the road was 20' and the impact with which the vehicles collided might have caused the damage, as opined by the Inspector in his report. However, this cannot be made the basis for coming to the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of negligence of the claimant and it can be said otherwise also and as such each has to be examined on its own merit. 11. Per contra, Exs.P1 and P3-FIR and charge sheet depict that a criminal case has been filed against the driver of the jeep in Crime No.3/05 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. Hence, to subscribe to the view that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the claimant would be illogical. 11. Per contra, Exs.P1 and P3-FIR and charge sheet depict that a criminal case has been filed against the driver of the jeep in Crime No.3/05 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. Hence, to subscribe to the view that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the claimant would be illogical. Hence, such finding of the Tribunal requires to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside, holding that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver, and the claimant has not contributed to the accident. Thus, restricting compensation payable to the claimant to the extent of 50% by Tribunal is also set aside by holding that the driver of the jeep was solely responsible for causing the accident in question. 12. Reg. Point No.(3): The Tribunal has awarded compensation under' the following heads: 1) Medical expenses Rs. 500/- 2) Loss of Income for 7 months Rs. 35,000/- 3) Pain and agony Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 60,500/- Insofar as loss of income is concerned, admittedly the claimant was advised rest from 20.1.2005 to 27.8.2005, i.e. for more than 7 months. In this regard, EX.P13- doctor's certificate and Ex, P14- certificate showing that Rs. 2,000/- and odd is deducted out of his salary are produced by the claimant. Though Ex.P14 is produced, it does not state as to how much of medical leave was spent and regularised and as such, the Tribunal restricted loss of leave for 7 months to arrive at Rs. 35,000/-. Admittedly, the claimant had sustained compound fracture of both bones of right forearm and there was left knee internal derangement at the joint. Having considered this evidence as also oral evidence of the claimant coupled with the evidence of the doctor who treated him, the compensation requires to be enhanced in the instant Case apart from what has been awarded by the tribunal and the same would be as follows: 1) Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- 2) Loss of leave for 7 months Rs. 7,500/- 3) Loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/- The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and as such the same is now awarded as above. Thus taking the total enhanced compensation to ~ 27,500/-. 13. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) The appeal is allowed in part. 5,000/- 2) Loss of leave for 7 months Rs. 7,500/- 3) Loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/- The Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and as such the same is now awarded as above. Thus taking the total enhanced compensation to ~ 27,500/-. 13. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) The appeal is allowed in part. The 3rd respondent-insurance company shall pay the balance of ~ 30,250/- which had been restricted to 50% by the Tribunal with interest 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. 2) Enhanced compensation of Rs. 27,500/- shall also be paid to the claimant with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till date of payment. S) The 3rd respondent shall deposit the above said amount with interest as ordered within eight weeks from today. 4) 50% of the said amount so deposited before the jurisdictional Tribunal shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years in any nationalized bank, in the name of the claimant appellant and he shall be-entitled to draw periodical interest and balance amount shall be paid to the claimant/appellant. 5) Parties are directed to bear their own costs.