JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. The claimant and third respondent in MVC No. 1551 of 2009 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru have come up in these two appeals. The appeal in MFA No. 10060 of 2011 is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal in MFA No. 12043 of 2011 is by the third respondent-BMTC seeking to shift the liability to pay compensation on the insurer of BMTC bus which caused the accident. The brief facts leading to these two appeals are as under: "On 11-11-2008 the claimant a pedestrian was hit by BMTC bus bearing Registration No. KA 05 C 2201 resulting in fracture of 1/3rd fibula of left leg, fracture of second and fifth metatarsal bones of left foot and also degloving injury to left foot resulting in crush injuries to him in the said accident. The medical record would disclose that claimant was admitted to Victoria Hospital immediately after the accident and he was treated as inpatient in the said hospital upto 30-1-2009 for a period of roughly around 80 days during which period the fracture of fibula of left foot was set right surgically and with reference to fracture of second and fifth metatarsal bones of left foot is concerned the 5th metatarsal bone was amputed and the second metatarsal bone was set right surgically. The crush injury was also attended to by the doctors. Subsequently claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident." 2. In the proceedings before the Tribunal the owner of the bus was arraigned as first respondent, insurer of the bus was second respondent and the hirer of the bus BMTC was arraigned as third respondent. In the proceedings before the Tribunal the first respondent filed objections contending that the offending bus was covered under the policy issued by the second respondent. The second respondent insurer took a specific defence that the insured of the bus has let out the bus on hire to the third respondent which is contrary to the terms of policy issued. Therefore they are not liable to pay compensation. The third respondent-BMTC accepted the accident. However, tried to shift the liability on the insurer of the bus. 3. Therefore they are not liable to pay compensation. The third respondent-BMTC accepted the accident. However, tried to shift the liability on the insurer of the bus. 3. The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding compensation to claimant in a sum of Rs. 1,60,200/- which is apportioned under various heads as under: Pain and sufferings Rs. 30, 000/- Loss of amenities and happiness Rs. 15, 000/- Medical and incidental charges Rs. 45, 000/- Loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs. 09, 000/- Loss of future earning due to disability Rs. 61, 200/- Total Rs. 1, 60, 200/- While considering the liability to pay compensation the same was saddled on third respondent by accepting the defence of second respondent-insurer. 4. The claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation has preferred the first appeal in MFA No. 10060 of 2011, the third respondent-BMTC has preferred another appeal in MFA No. 12043 of 2011 seeking to shift the liability on the insurer of the offending bus. 5. Now coming to the appeal filed by the claimant it is seen that when the claimant has admittedly suffered crush injury, fracture of fibula and fracture of two metatarsal bones compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering at Rs. 30,000/- is on the lower side and the same is enhanced by another Rs. 10,000/-. So far as compensation awarded under amenities and happiness is also enhanced by another Rs. 10,000/-. Similarly the compensation awarded for medical and incidental charges at Rs. 45,000/- is enhanced by another Rs. 10,000/- for the reason that in this proceedings an application is filed in IA No. 1 of 2015 in MFA No. 10060 of 2011 bringing on record the additional documents in the form of medical bills to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- which is spent subsequent to the claim petition. The said application is allowed by a separate order and accordingly another sum of Rs. 10,000/- is added to Rs. 45,000/-. So far as the compensation which is awarded for loss of earning during treatment period which is awarded for three months at Rs. 3,000/- is recalculated by taking the same at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. for six months which would work out to Rs. 24,000/-. Therefore another Rs. 15,000/- is added to the compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. So far as the compensation which is awarded for loss of earning during treatment period which is awarded for three months at Rs. 3,000/- is recalculated by taking the same at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. for six months which would work out to Rs. 24,000/-. Therefore another Rs. 15,000/- is added to the compensation of Rs. 9,000/- which is already awarded under the said head. 6. So far as loss of future earning capacity is concerned, the disability is taken at 25% and notional income at Rs. 4,000/-. With that the loss of future earning is Rs. 1,000/- p.m. or Rs. 12,000/- p.a. Since the relevant multiplier applicable being 17' the total compensation payable is Rs. 2,04,000/-. Since Rs. 61,200/- is already awarded the difference of Rs. 1,42,800/- is payable to him as additional compensation on that count. In addition to that another Rs. 16,000/- is awarded towards conveyance, nutritious food and attendant charges and Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses. With this the enhanced compensation which the claimant is entitled to is Rs. 2,28,800/- over and above Rs. 1,60,200/- already awarded. Accordingly, the appeal of claimant is allowed in part. 7. Now coming to the appeal which is filed by the hirer of the offending bus it is seen that the legal position with reference to this is changed subsequently because of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Kulsum and Others, (2011)8 SCC 142 : (2011)3 SCC (Cri.) 376 : 2011 ACJ 2145 (SC). In the light of the aforesaid judgment the hirer of bus BMTC would get absolved of the liability to pay compensation. It is the responsibility of second respondent-insurer to cover the liability to pay damages to the claimant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the BMTC in MFA No. 12043 of 2011 is also allowed and liability to pay compensation is shifted on second respondent-insurer of the offending bus. 8. So far as the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,28,800/- is concerned, the entire compensation with interest except for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is ordered to be deposited in any nationalised bank for a period of five years with right to receive interest periodically. Out of the total enhanced compensation Rs. 25,000/- is ordered to be released in favour of claimant to meet his immediate financial need. Accordingly, these two appeals are allowed. 25,000/- is ordered to be deposited in any nationalised bank for a period of five years with right to receive interest periodically. Out of the total enhanced compensation Rs. 25,000/- is ordered to be released in favour of claimant to meet his immediate financial need. Accordingly, these two appeals are allowed. In view of the appeal filed by BMTC being allowed, the amount in deposit is ordered to be released in its favour.