JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. 1. These two appeals are filed against the common judgment and award dated 28-8-2012 made in MVC Nos. 151 and 152 of 2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Belagavi ('the Tribunal', for short), awarding a compensation of Rs. 70,426/- and Rs. 1,87,288/- respectively with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, seeking for enhancement of compensation. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together with the consent of both the parties and disposed of by this common judgment. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 23-5-2011, at about 8.30 a.m., the claimants were travelling in a bus bearing No. KA-37/F-483 as paid passengers. When the said bus came near Kurubanal Cross on Kustagi, Hospet, NH-13, a Truck bearing No. HR-74/5025 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus, resulting in the accident. On account of the accident, the claimants and others have sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimants were shifted to the Government Hospital, Kustagi and after the first aid, they were shifted to S.D.M. Hospital, Dharwad and admitted as indoor patients. Still the claimants were under follow up treatment and they spent huge amount for their medical expenses. It is further case of the claimants that, prior to the accident, they were hale and healthy and doing coolie and household work and were earning handsome income for maintaining their family. Due to the accidental injuries, they have suffered permanent physical disability and lost their earning capacity etc. Therefore, they sought for the compensation against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicles. 2. The respondent 1 before the Tribunal remained ex-parte. Respondents 2 and 3-Insurance Company and NEKRTC filed objections denying the petition averments in toto. They also denied the age, occupation and earnings of the claimants. Respondent 2-Insurance Company contended that the claim made by the claimants is exorbitant and excessive and contended that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. Respondent 3-NEKRTC contended that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. 3. Respondent 3-NEKRTC contended that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. 3. On considering the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issue for consideration: i. Whether the petitioner proves that on 23-5-2011 at about 8.30 a.m. on Kustagi to Hospeth, NH-13 road near Kurubanal Cross the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck No. HR-74/5025 by its driver and thus he was injured? ii. Whether the respondent 2 proves that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. KA-37/F-483 by its driver only? iii. Whether the respondent 2 proves that this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? iv. Whether the respondent 2 proves that the driver of the truck was not holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident? v. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom? 4. In order to establish their case, the claimants examined themselves as P.Ws. 2 and 3, examined the Medical Officer as P.W. 4 and got marked documents at Exs. P. 1 to P. 34. The respondent 2 got examined its official as R.W. 1 and got marked two documents as Exs. R. 1 and R. 2. The respondent 3 has not adduced any evidence. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, has granted the compensation of Rs. 70,476/- to the claimant in MVC No. 151 of 2012 and Rs. 1,87,288/- to the claimant in MVC No. 152 of 2012, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Against the said judgment and award, the present appeals are filed by the claimants for enhancement. The respondents have not filed any appeals. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri Hanumant Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant/claimants strenuously contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He contended that, though the claimant's have suffered permanent disability due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc. Sri Hanumant Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant/claimants strenuously contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He contended that, though the claimant's have suffered permanent disability due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc. are on the lower side and therefore, he sought for enhancement of the compensation. 8. Per contra, Sri M.K. Soudagar, learned Counsel for the respondent 1-Insurance Company and Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned Counsel for respondent 2-NEKRTC, sought to justify the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record. 10. It is not dispute that the accident occurred on 25-1-2011 at 8.00 a.m. It is also not in dispute that the said accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the truck bearing No. HR-74/5025 and the driver of the bus bearing No. KA-37/F-483. The claimants/appellants herein, who were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 have specifically stated in their evidence that, they have suffered grievous injuries in the accident and after the accident, they are not in a position to do their work and earn, as they were doing before the accident. The claimants have also stated that they have spent huge amount for medical expenses. 11. Insofar as the claimant in MVC No. 151 of 2012--Kumari Manjula is concerned, P.W. 4-Doctor has stated that she is having pain in right shoulder and she is facing difficulty in using the right upper limb for her routine activities and difficult in lifting the pushing with right upper limb. The doctor has assessed 25% permanent physical disability to the right upper limb and issued the disability certificate as per Ex. P. 31. 12. Insofar as the claimant in MVC No. 152 of 2012--Smt. Laxmawwa is concerned, P.W. 4-Doctor has stated that she is having pain in right lower and upper limb, she is facing difficulty in walking, standing, difficulty in using right upper limb for routine activities. P. 31. 12. Insofar as the claimant in MVC No. 152 of 2012--Smt. Laxmawwa is concerned, P.W. 4-Doctor has stated that she is having pain in right lower and upper limb, she is facing difficulty in walking, standing, difficulty in using right upper limb for routine activities. He certified that Gait-Antalgic, there is wasting of right thigh muscle 1.0 c.m. and right arm 0.5 c.m., shortening of right lower limb 1.0 c.m. and right upper limb 1.00 c.m. There is restriction in movement of hip joint and knee joint. The doctor has assessed 35% permanent physical disability to the right lower limb and issued disability certificate as per Ex. P. 23. Nothing has been elicited from P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, in their cross-examinations. 13. Taking into consideration the overall evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 and the entire materials on records produced on behalf of the claimants and the respondents, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The claimant in MVC No. 151 of 2012 is a student aged about 20 years and the claimant in MVC No. 152 of 2012 is an old lady aged about 70 years. Taking into consideration their avocation, it is appropriate to reassess the compensation in both the cases as under: In MFA No. 20700 of 2013 (MVC No. 151 of 2012) In MFA No. 20701 of 2013 (MVC No. 152 of 2012) In view of the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals are allowed in part. The appellant/claimant in MFA No. 20700 of 2013 is entitled to a enhanced compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and the appellant/claimant in MFA No. 20701 of 2013 is entitled to a enhanced compensation of Rs. 60,000/-, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. It is made clear that respondents 1 and 2 and jointly and severally liable pay the enhanced compensation with interest proportionately (50% each). Ordered accordingly.