Judgment : 1. The appeal by the Insurer and the Cross Objection by the injured claimant/cross objector are directed against the same judgment and award dated 15th December 2007, passed in MVC No.842/2006, by the District Judge, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) 2. While the Insurer has filed the appeal for reduction of compensation on the ground that, compensation of Rs.8,54,505/- with 6% interest per annum, awarded in favour of the injured claimant/cross objector is excessive and on the higher side and that the Tribunal ought to have fixed reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooter; the injured claimant/cross objector has filed the cross objection, seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of Rs.8,54,505/-awarded by Tribunal is inadequate. 3. The facts of the case as stated in the claim petition are that, at about 9-45 A.M., on 05-05-2006, when the injured claimant/cross objector was proceeding in his Bajaj Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-14/J-1275, on B.H. Road, Shimoga, in front of APMC Office, he met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by the rider of TVS Motor Bike bearing Registration No.KA-14/R-7714. Due to the impact, the injured claimant/cross objector sustained grievous head injuries and became unconscious and was immediately shifted to the Hospital in Shimoga, where he was in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for a period of 45 days. 4. It was the case of the injured claimant that, he was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident, which resulted in causing grievous head injuries and that he was working as a paint mixer, earning a sum of more than Rs.5,000/- per month. On account of the injuries sustained, he has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably. 5. On account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the injured claimant/cross objector filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.17,01,000/-against the rider of TVS Motor bike, Insurers of both the vehicles and owner of Scooter. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 15th December, 2007. On account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the injured claimant/cross objector filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.17,01,000/-against the rider of TVS Motor bike, Insurers of both the vehicles and owner of Scooter. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 15th December, 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.8,54,505/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and also for not fixing any percentage of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooter, i.e. the inured claimant/cross objector herein, the insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation and also to fix some percentage of negligence on the part of injured claimant and the injured claimant has filed the Cross Objection, seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side when compared to the nature of injuries sustained and the neurological disability suffered by him. 6. We have heard Shri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for Insurer and Shri. Basavaraju, appearing for Shri. B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for injured claimant/cross objector, gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal as well as cross objection carefully and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, including the original records placed before us. 7. Shri A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in concluding the proceedings, without fixing reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooter, i.e. the cross objector and awarding exorbitant compensation of a sum of Rs.8,54,505-00 on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the riders of both the vehicles contributed to the occurrence of accident and that both the vehicles are insured with the same Insurer. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the riders of both the vehicles contributed to the occurrence of accident and that both the vehicles are insured with the same Insurer. Further, he has taken us through paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment of the Tribunal and pointed out the specific finding recorded by Tribunal, wherein it is categorically stated PW1 was entering the high way from the left side whereas RW1 was going on the National Highway on his left side by following traffic Rules. PW1 who was coming from the left side road and who was to enter the Highway should have stopped the vehicle and observed the movements of the traffic and then he has to enter the road. But, instead of that he has suddenly entered the road and dashed his vehicle to the vehicle of RW1 and caused the accident in which RW1. Admittedly there is collision between two vehicles and if the injured claimant had been little cautious and followed the traffic rules and Regulations, definitely the accident could have been avoided. Therefore, the rider of the Scooter, i.e. the injured claimant/cross objector, by flouting the traffic rules and regulations, has also contributed to the occurrence of accident. The Tribunal has neither looked into nor considered or appreciated this aspect of the matter and thus fixed the entire negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Bike. The same cannot be sustained and liable to the modified by fixing reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor bike and also on the part of the rider of Scooter. Regarding quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, be vehemently submitted that the Tribunal, without any justification, also erred in assessing the monthly income of the injured claimant at Rs.4,000/-per month and as per the evidence of the Doctor, who opined the neurological disability at 85%, assessed the permanent disability at 75%, contrary to the material available on file. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the functional disability sustained by injured claimant, the permanent whole body disability may be re-assessed between 30% and 40%. He further submitted that the compensation awarded towards loss of sexual pleasure is also on the higher side and liable to be reduced. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the functional disability sustained by injured claimant, the permanent whole body disability may be re-assessed between 30% and 40%. He further submitted that the compensation awarded towards loss of sexual pleasure is also on the higher side and liable to be reduced. Therefore, he submits that the compensation awarded under all the said heads is liable to be reduced substantially, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for injured claimant/cross objector vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal, grossly erred in assessing the monthly income of the injured claimant at only Rs.4,000/- and the same is liable to be re-assessed having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident being 2006. He submitted that the injured claimant is working as a paint mixer, which is a skilled job and requires application of mind and it is not that all can do the said job. Now, because of the neurological disability, the injured claimant would not be in a position to continue the said job and therefore, the monthly income may be re-assessed at least at Rs.5,000/-, for the reason that, in support of the said income, the injured claimant has examined the owner of the Paint Shop, where he was employed. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal also erred in not considering the fact the injured claimant was hospitalized and was in ICU for a period of 45 days and during the said period, huge sums were spent on medical expenses and conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and that on the advise of the Doctor, he has taken follow-up treatment for a period of six months. Regarding neurological disability assessed by Doctor at 85% and re-assessed by Tribunal at 75%, learned counsel appearing for injured claimant vehemently submitted that, the injured claimant has sustained severe head injuries and because of the neurological disability, he being aged about only 29 years, is deprived of the marital bliss through out his life and therefore, the permanent disability re-assessed by Tribunal at 75% is just and proper and it does not call for interference. Further, he vehemently submitted that because of the head injuries and neurological deficiency, the Doctor has deposed that the injured claimant requires permanent hearing aid, which costs about Rs.25,000/-but, the Tribunal, has neither looked into nor considered or appreciated this aspect of the matter and erred in not awarding any compensation towards the same and also towards future medical expenses. Regarding the submission of the counsel for Insurer that reasonable negligence has to be fixed on the injured claimant also, he submits that the said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that, the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and by assigning valid reasons at paragraphs 15 to 18 of its judgment, has come to the conclusion that the rider of Motor Bike, who is a Police Constable entirely contributed to the occurrence of accident. The said finding of fact recorded by Tribunal is just and proper and it does not call for interference. Therefore, he submitted that reasonable enhancement may be made by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 9. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, the points that arise for our consideration in the appeal as well as the cross objection are: I) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is excessive and liable to be reduced? II) Whether the Tribunal is justified in not fixing reasonable negligence on the part of the injured claimant, i.e. rider of Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-14/J-1275? Re-Point I): After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, it can be seen that, occurrence of accident and resultant injuries to the injured claimant/cross objector are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the injured claimant was aged about 29 years as on the date of accident and sustained severe head injury and also underwent a surgery for removal of blood clot. Immediately after the accident, the injured claimant was in an unconscious state and in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), for a period of 45 days. It is also not in dispute that the injured claimant was aged about 29 years as on the date of accident and sustained severe head injury and also underwent a surgery for removal of blood clot. Immediately after the accident, the injured claimant was in an unconscious state and in Intensive Care Unit (ICU), for a period of 45 days. He has examined the Neurosurgeon as RW3, who has treated the injured claimant and he has assessed the neurological disability at 85% and opined that the injured claimant is likely to suffer psychological problem in future and that the injuries caused to head has incapacitated him from leading a normal life. However, in spite of these deformities, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the whole body disability at 75% and the same is on the higher side. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, percentage of neurological disability assessed by Neurosurgeon and also permanent disability assessed by Tribunal, we re-assess the whole body disability at 50%, as against 75% assessed by Tribunal to meet the ends of justice. The injured claimant, being aged about only 29 years, has to pull on the life with this disability for the rest of his life. 10. As stated earlier, the injured claimant has sustained severe head injury and sustained neurological disability and may also face psychological problem. Admittedly, immediately after the accident, he was in ICU for a period of 45 days. He has also undergone a surgery for removal of blood clot. During this period, he would have sustained untold pain and agony and spent substantial amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from medical expenses. Further, having regard to the gravity of injuries sustained and the disability, we presume that he might have been away from work for a period of six months. He has lost the future amenities and has to suffer discomfort and unhappiness in future. Because of the accidental injuries sustained, he cannot do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier to the accident. 11. Further, it is seen that the Doctor has deposed that the injured claimant has sustained loss of hearing and therefore, requires a permanent hearing aid, which costs about Rs.25,000/-. The injured claimant has already sustained head injuries and neurological deficiency. At least to keep his hearing intact, permanent hearing aid is required. 11. Further, it is seen that the Doctor has deposed that the injured claimant has sustained loss of hearing and therefore, requires a permanent hearing aid, which costs about Rs.25,000/-. The injured claimant has already sustained head injuries and neurological deficiency. At least to keep his hearing intact, permanent hearing aid is required. Further, it should be noted that, having regard to the magnitude of neurological disability sustained by him, we infer that he may require some compensation towards future medical expenses also. 12. Further, it is stated that the inured claimant was working as paint mixer, earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-. To substantiate the same, he has examined the owner of the Paint Shop. But, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured claimant at Rs.4,000/-. The same, in our view, is on the lower side and needs to be re-assessed. The accident is of the year 2006. The injured claimant was aged about 29 years at the time of accident. He was working as a paint mixer. It is a skilled job and there should be perfection to attain a particular color. Normally, all persons cannot do the said job and it requires skill and knowledge in that particular field. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation and the year of accident and other relevant aspects, we re-assess the income of the injured claimant at Rs.5,000/-per month, to meet the ends of justice. 13. In the light of the discussion made above and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we answer Point No.1) in the ‘Affirmative’ and hold that the compensation awarded by Tribunal on some heads is on the higher side and some heads is on the lower side and ultimately, the total compensation is liable to be reduced. Accordingly, having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment, neurological disability etc, we award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards injury, pain and sufferings as against Rs.1,00,000/-; and Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 14. Regarding compensation payable towards loss of future income, the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and permanent whole body disability at 50% are already reassessed in the preceding paragraphs. 14. Regarding compensation payable towards loss of future income, the monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and permanent whole body disability at 50% are already reassessed in the preceding paragraphs. As the injured claimant was aged about 29 years, as on the date of accident, the multiplier applicable is ‘17’ in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s Case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- (i.e. Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 50/100 x ‘17’) towards loss of future income as against Rs.5,76,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 15. Further, it is seen that the Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period, future medical expenses and loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per month for a period of six months, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness on account of disability and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. 16. However, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,505/- towards medical expenses and it does not call for interference. 17. Further, it should be noticed that having regard to the head injury and also neurological problems, the injured claimant may not be able to lead a normal life and because of the said disability he cannot enjoy normal cohabitation and would be deprived of marital bliss in his entire life. Therefore, we hold that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards loss of sexual pleasure/marital bliss is also just and proper and does not call for interference. Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs.10,48,505/- as against Rs.8,54,505/-awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization and after deducting 40% towards contributory negligence, there would be reduction of compensation by a sum of Rs.2,25,402/-. Re-Point III : Regarding the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that, the Tribunal has filed to fix reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the injured claimant, i.e. rider of the Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-14/J-1275, after critical evaluation of the entire material available on file, we find some force in the said submission. 18. Re-Point III : Regarding the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that, the Tribunal has filed to fix reasonable contributory negligence on the part of the injured claimant, i.e. rider of the Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-14/J-1275, after critical evaluation of the entire material available on file, we find some force in the said submission. 18. It is admittedly a case of collision between two vehicles. The vehicles involved in this case are Motor bike bearing Registration No.KA-14/R-7714, driven by PW1 – Shivalingappa, Police Constable and Scooter bearing Registration No.KA-14/J-1275, driven by RW-1 – M.J. Rajendra, injured claimant/cross objector herein. Both the offending vehicles have collided on the aforementioned dated and time near Shetty Garrage, Shimoga. PW1 has stated that he was going to the Police Station by following the traffic rules and that RW1 came driving his Scooter in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. But, RW! Has stated that he was going on B.H. Road, Shimoga on his left side and at that time, PW1 came from left side of the road and entered the National Highway without observing the traffic Rules and while so driving, he dashed against his vehicle and as a result of the same, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. 19. In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that he was entering the high way from the left side whereas RW1 was going on the National Highway on his left side by following the traffic rules. PW1 who was coming from the left side road and who was to enter the Highway should have stopped the vehicle and observed the movements of the traffic and then entered the highway. But instead of that, he has suddenly entered the high way and dashed against the Scooter driven by RW1, injured claimant and caused the accident, resulting in grievous injuries to the injured claimant. The Tribunal, has categorically appreciated the oral evidence from paragraphs 15 to 18 and having come to the aforesaid conclusion, ought to have fixed reasonable negligence on the part of the riders of both the offending vehicles. Instead of that, the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence on the part of the rider of Motor Bike. The Tribunal, has categorically appreciated the oral evidence from paragraphs 15 to 18 and having come to the aforesaid conclusion, ought to have fixed reasonable negligence on the part of the riders of both the offending vehicles. Instead of that, the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence on the part of the rider of Motor Bike. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, common sense and rule stipulates that a person entering the highway must take utmost care and caution and observe the movements of the vehicles before entering the high way. Therefore, we answer point No.II] in the ‘Negative’ and hold that the Tribunal is not justified in fixing the entire negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor bike. Therefore, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence coupled with the other material available on file, we modify the entire negligence fixed on the part of the rider of the Motor bike and fix the contributory negligence in the ratio of 60:40 i.e. 60% on the part of the rider of the Motor bike, bearing Registration No.KA-14/R-7714 and 40% on the part of the rider of the Scooter, bearing Registration No.KA-14/J-1275, to meet the ends of justice. 20. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurer is allowed in part and the cross objection filed by the injured claimant/cross objector is dismissed. The impugned common judgment and award dated 15th December 2007, passed in MVC No.842/2006, by the District Judge, I Fast Track Court, Shimoga, is hereby modified. The liability fastened on the rider of the Motor bike bearing Registration No.KA-14/R-7714 is hereby set aside and the same is hereby modified, by fixing contributory negligence in the ratio of 60:40, i.e. 60% on the part of the rider of the Motor bike, bearing Registration No.KA-14/R-7714 and 40% on the part of the rider of the Scooter, bearing Registration No.KA-14/J-1275, to meet the ends of justice. The total compensation awarded to the injured claimant, as aforesaid works out to Rs.10,48,505/-. As per the contributory negligence fixed, he is entitled to only 60% of the total compensation. Accordingly, 60% of Rs.10,48,505/- works out to Rs.6,29,103/-as against Rs.8,54,505/-awarded by Tribunal. There would be reduction of compensation by a sum of Rs.2,25,402/-. The total compensation awarded to the injured claimant, as aforesaid works out to Rs.10,48,505/-. As per the contributory negligence fixed, he is entitled to only 60% of the total compensation. Accordingly, 60% of Rs.10,48,505/- works out to Rs.6,29,103/-as against Rs.8,54,505/-awarded by Tribunal. There would be reduction of compensation by a sum of Rs.2,25,402/-. The Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation, if any, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The apportionment of compensation ordered by Tribunal would be proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court. The statutory amount in deposit by the Insurer in M.F.A. No.5490/2008 is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith. Office to draw award, accordingly.