JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J.-This is a claimant's appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and award passed in MVC. No. 6131/2009 dated 01.04.2011 by MACT, Bangalore and seeking enhancement for compensation. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri. N. Gopalakrishna, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri. D. Vijaya Kumar along with Smt. Pushpalatha, learned advocates appearing for respondent and perused the Judgment and award in question as also records secured from the Tribunal. 3. Appellant herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- contending inter alia that in a road traffic accident that occurred on 09.11.2008 she had sustained grievous injuries and as such she had suffered consequential disability and hence she sought for compensation. Sole respondent appeared and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. On appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,92,200/- under the following heads: (1) Pain and suffering Rs. 35,000/- (2) Medical expenses, conveyance & nourishment Rs. 45,000/- (3) Future Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- (4) Loss of future income on account of disability Rs. 61,200/- (5) Loss of earnings during laid up period Rs. 12,000/- (6) Attendant charges Rs. 4,000/- (7) Loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/- (8) Disfiguration Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 1,92,200/- 4. On account of negligence of driver of the motorcycle 10% contributory negligence has been fastened on the rider of motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 19,220/- has been reduced by the Tribunal and thus it has been held that claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,72,980/-. 5. Sri. Gopalkrishna, learned counsel appearing for claimant would submit that for the actionable negligence of the driver of motorcycle and fixing the contributory negligence on the pillion rider is impermissible in law and in support of his submission he relies upon the Judgment in the case of Union of India vs. United India Insurance Limited, reported in AIR 1998 SC 640 . It is the contention of Sri. Vijaya Kumar that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and contends that compensation awarded by the tribunal being just and reasonable same does not call for interference as such he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. It is the contention of Sri. Vijaya Kumar that the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is just and proper and contends that compensation awarded by the tribunal being just and reasonable same does not call for interference as such he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the Judgment and award passed by the tribunal as also records secured from the tribunal it would indicate that claimant had sustained following injuries: 1. Posterior dislocation of left hip with left acetabulam fracture 2. Fracture superior and inferior pubic rami left hip, right hip. 3. Posterior interosseous nerve palsy of right forearm. As evidenced from the wound certificate Exhibit P-6 and discharge summary Exhibit P-7. Claimant immediately after the accident was administered first aid treatment at Government Hospital, KGF and was later referred to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar on the same day. Doctor who treated her has been examined as PW-2. He has reiterated the contents of Exhibits P-11 to P-14 namely case sheet, X-ray film, OPD record and disability assessment proforma. Hehas categorically stated that claimant was put on skeletal traction on B.B Splint and wound debridement for the forearm was done on 18.11.2008 and split skin grafting on 18.12.2008. Case sheet of the hospital would indicate that claimant had developed bed sores and as such she was treated as an inpatient from 09.11.2008 to 29.01.2009 i.e., for 81 days. Claimant came to be examined for assessment of disability by doctor PW-2 on 19.10.2010. He has stated that there is wasting of hip muscles, abduction and external rotation of left hip joint is restricted and painful and scar mark over the right forearm is noticeable with decreased cylindrical and spherical grasp decreased hook grasp, altered sensation in the thumb and decreased grip strength. He has also radiologically evaluated her namely on perusal of x-rays and found that fracture of pelvic bone is malunited with pelvic diastasis. On account of these injuries he has opined the whole body disability is at 25%. Cross examination of said doctor would indicate that there is nothing worthwhile elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve the said statement. On the other hand during the course of cross examination doctor has volunteered and stated that claimant has sustained palsy of right forearm. On account of these injuries he has opined the whole body disability is at 25%. Cross examination of said doctor would indicate that there is nothing worthwhile elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve the said statement. On the other hand during the course of cross examination doctor has volunteered and stated that claimant has sustained palsy of right forearm. In that view of the matter tribunal has rightly accepted the evidence of doctor. However, while assessing future loss of income tribunal has applied ALMANCO guidelines for assessment of disability and arrived at a conclusion that there is arithmetical miscalculation by the doctor. Medical records would indicate that fractures are malunited and photographs produced as per Exhibit P-8 would indicate that injuries sustained by the claimant are grievous in nature and it is not heeled even on the day photographs were taken. These photographs at Exhibit P-8 would clearly indicate that claimant would be unable to sit, squat, stand for long hours and will be unable to sit cross legged and find difficulty in climbing the stairs as also recorded by doctor PW-2 in the disability certificate Exhibit P-14. Proforma assessment disability form which has been produced and marked as Exhibit P-14 would indicate with exactitude the percentage of disability has been assessed by the doctor and on the basis of which whole body disability has been arrived at. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to accept the finding recorded by the tribunal that whole body disability should be 10%. Yet another reason for disagreeing with the finding recorded by tribunal is claimant is a coolie by occupation. She has stated so in her claim petition as also in her evidence. Right hand injury sustained has resulted in palsy namely loss of function, motor or sensory to the right forearm which is another form of paralysis. Hence, whole disability as assessed by doctor being proper and said disability as assessed by doctor could not have been discarded by the tribunal more particularly when there was no other medical evidence available on record placed by the respondent-corporation. Hence, I am of the view that disability assessed at 25% by the Doctor to the whole body is to be taken and not 10% as assessed by the tribunal. 7. Hence, I am of the view that disability assessed at 25% by the Doctor to the whole body is to be taken and not 10% as assessed by the tribunal. 7. Insofar as finding recorded by tribunal that 10% contributory negligence has to be fastened on the claimant, would not detain this Court too long to set aside said finding, inasmuch as claimant being a pillion rider compensation cannot be deducted even accepting or assuming that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle on which she was travelling. This Court is not embarking upon considering as to whether there was actionable negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle and if so to what extent inasmuch as there is neither appeal filed by respondent corporation or the said finding has been challenged nor rider of motorcycle had filed any appeal. Hence, without going into that aspect the finding recorded by the tribunal deducting 10% from out of the compensation payable to claimant cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. This view is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. United India Insurance Limited, reported in AIR 1998 SC 640 as held herein below: "8. There is a well-known principle in the law of torts, called the 'doctrine of identification or 'imputation'. It is to the effect that the defendant can plead the contributory negligence of the plaintiff or of an employee of the plaintiff where the employee is acting in the course of employment. But, it has been also held in Mills vs. Armstrong, (1988) 13 AC 1 (HL) (also called 'The Bernina case') that that principle is not applicable to a passenger in a vehicle in the sense that the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the passenger is travelling, cannot be imputed to the passenger. (Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed., 1984 Vol. 34, page 74) (Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Torts (23rd Ed. 1997 p.511) (Ramaswamy Iyer, Law of Torts, 7th Ed., p.447). The Bernina case in which this principle was laid in 1888 related to passengers in a steamship. In that case a member of the crew and a passenger in the ship Bushire were drowned on account of its collision with another ship Bernina. 1997 p.511) (Ramaswamy Iyer, Law of Torts, 7th Ed., p.447). The Bernina case in which this principle was laid in 1888 related to passengers in a steamship. In that case a member of the crew and a passenger in the ship Bushire were drowned on account of its collision with another ship Bernina. It was held that even if the navigators of the ship Bushire were negligent, the 'navigators' negligence could not be imputed to the deceased who were travelling in that ship. This principle has been applied, in latter cases, no passengers travelling in a motor-vehicle whose driver is found guilty of contributory negligence. In other words, the principle of contributory negligence is confined to the actual negligence of the plaintiff or of his agents. There is no rule that the driver of an omnibus or a coach of a cab or the engine driver of a train, or the captain of a ship on the one hand and the passengers on the other hand are to be 'identified' so as to fasten the latter with any liability for the former's contributory negligence. There cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a 'right of control' of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger'. A passenger is not treated as a backseat driver. (Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Ed., (1984 p.521-522). It is therefore clear that even if the driver of the passenger vehicle was negligent, the Railways, if its negligence was otherwise proved -could not plead contributory negligence on the part of the passengers of the vehicle. What is clear is that qua the passengers of the bus who were innocent, the driver and owner of the bus and, if proved, the railways - can all be joint tort-feasors. Point 3: This point deals with the common law duty of railways at level crossings. A contention was raised for the Union of India that there was no pleading in regard to the negligence of the Railways. This contention was rightly rejected by the High Court. In our view, the issue framed by the Tribunal was broad based. Point 3: This point deals with the common law duty of railways at level crossings. A contention was raised for the Union of India that there was no pleading in regard to the negligence of the Railways. This contention was rightly rejected by the High Court. In our view, the issue framed by the Tribunal was broad based. It read as follows: "Whether the accident was caused due to the negligence of all or any of the respondents or of the bus driver?" The claimants and the bus owner led evidence and were elaborately cross examined by the Railways. The Railways examined the engine driver and filed the report of the Commissioner of Railways who inquired into the cause of the accident. No other evidence was adduced by the railways. It is well settled that when the issue framed by the trial Court is wide and parties understood the scope thereof and adduced such evidence as they wanted to, then there can be no prejudice and a contention regarding absence of a detailed pleading cannot be countenanced". 8. In view of the fact that claimant was an inpatient for 81 days as per discharge summary Exhibit P-7 and on account of said injuries sustained, she was treated continuously for 81 days she would have undergone pain and suffering all these days and compensation awarded towards 'pain and suffering' by the Tribunal requires to be enhanced marginally. On account of injury sustained to left hip as evidenced from the deposition of doctor and Exhibit P-8 photographs indicating that said injury is of very high magnitude it would result in higher degree of restricted movements of left hip as opined by the doctor claimant would have to bear with this disability and deformity throughout her life and as such she is entitled to higher compensation under the head loss of amenities'. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards 'food and nourishment' which is abysmally on the lower side. Taking into consideration that claimant was an inpatient for 81 days if compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day is awarded it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, a sum of Rs. 40,500/- towards 'food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges' is hereby awarded. Since tribunal has awarded Rs. 11,000/-, same has to be deducted and balance of Rs. 29,500/- requires to be awarded. 500/- per day is awarded it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, a sum of Rs. 40,500/- towards 'food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges' is hereby awarded. Since tribunal has awarded Rs. 11,000/-, same has to be deducted and balance of Rs. 29,500/- requires to be awarded. Thus, in all claimant would be entitled to the following compensation: Sl. No. Description Rs. Amount 1. Loss of future earning Rs. 3,000 × 25% / 100 = 750 × 12 × 17 = Rs. 1,53,000/- Less: awarded by Tribunal = Rs. 61,200/- Balance additional compensation Rs. 91,800/- 2. Pain and suffering (additional) 15,000/- 3. Loss of amenities (additional) Rs. 25,000/- 4. Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 500 × 81 = Rs. 40,500/- Less awarded by tribunal = Rs. 11,000/- Rs. 29,500/- Balance Rs. 1,61,300/- For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed: ORDER (1) Appeal is hereby allowed in part. (2) Judgment and award passed by MACT, Bangalore in MVC No. 6131/2009 dated 01.04.2011 is hereby modified and an additional compensation of Rs. 1,61,300/- is hereby awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from date of petition till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier. (3) Order for deposit as made by the tribunal shall hold good for enhanced compensation also. (4) Respondent shall deposit the compensation amount with interest before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. (5) Registry is directed to transmit the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.