JUDGMENT : Mrs. Sujatha, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, [the Tribunal, for short] in MVC No. 1166 of 2006. 2. Briefly stated the facts are : That the appellant had filed a claim petition in MVC No. 1166 of 2016 before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident which occurred on 6.5.2006 owing to actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle-Bus bearing Registration No. KA-16-B-7999 while the appellant was travelling in the said bus. The Respondent No. 1 contested the matter. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs. 39,000/- with interest at 6% per annum fixing the contributory negligence at 50% on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia, assailing the impugned judgment and order, would contend that the appellant was a passenger of the offending vehicle on the fateful day. No doubt, he was travelling on the roof top of the bus, he could be construed as passenger and the insurance company could be held liable to pay compensation. There was no negligence on the part of the appellant in causing the accident. The Tribunal attributing 50% of negligence on the appellant and awarding a meagre sum of compensation is contrary to the evidence on record and the well established principle of law. Accordingly, he seeks to set aside the order of the Tribunal foisting 50% of contributory negligence on the appellant and further he seeks to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company, Bangalore v. Jayashree alias Lakshmi, reported in 2010 (1) KCCR 495 [DB]: (2009 (4) AIR Kant HCR 193 (Kar)). 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer stoutly contends that the accident, no doubt occurred on the fateful day, but there was contributory negligence of the appellant which is apparent on the face of the record. The appellant sitting as a passenger on the roof top of the bus itself indicates the contributory negligence of the appellant. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurer stoutly contends that the accident, no doubt occurred on the fateful day, but there was contributory negligence of the appellant which is apparent on the face of the record. The appellant sitting as a passenger on the roof top of the bus itself indicates the contributory negligence of the appellant. The Insurance Company is not disputing the liability to indemnify the owner considering the person sitting on the roof top of the bus as a passenger. However, considering the factum of negligence of the appellant who was travelling on the roof top of the bus, the Tribunal is justified in attributing 50% of the negligence on the appellant which cannot be found fault with. 6. Learned Counsel would further contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it emerges that the appellant was travelling on the roof top of the bus on 6-5-2006. The appellant sustained accidental injuries due to the accident for the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. These facts are undisputed. 8. The only question would be fastening of the liability on the insurer to the extent of 50% attributing contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the appellant. 9. It is very well established from the records that the appellant was travelling on the roof top of the bus. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jayashrees case [supra], it is held that the persons travelling on the roof of the bus could be considered as passenger and the insurance company would be held liable to pay compensation for his death due to the motor vehicle accident. However, the driver has contributed 50% of the negligence and the other 50% was about the passenger travelling on the roof top of the bus. Therefore, to this extent, the insurance company has to indemnify the insured. However, the driver has contributed 50% of the negligence and the other 50% was about the passenger travelling on the roof top of the bus. Therefore, to this extent, the insurance company has to indemnify the insured. Respectfully, following the Division Bench judgment of this Court and considering the negligence on the part of the appellant, travelling on the roof top of the bus, the Tribunal had fixed 50% of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant which is justifiable and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is beneficial to advert to the factual matrix of the case wherein, the appellant had sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment in different hospitals, firstly at Government Hospital at Challakere, secondly at District Hospital, Chitradurga and thirdly at Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere. The appellant sustained fracture of wrist injury, lacerated wound over left eye brow measuring 5 x 4 cms. abrasion over right arm on anterior aspect measuring 3 x 2 cms, abrasion over nose measuring 2 x 1 cm. The appellant had taken treatment as inpatient for 11 days and as an outpatient till 14-1-2007 as per Exhibits P23 and P24. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The appellant had suffered pain and agony during hospitalization period and thereafter even during his outpatient treatment. In my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering considering the evidence available on record, more particularly, with the evidence of the Doctor who had deposed as PW.2 coupled with disability certificate at Exhibit P25 wherein, the Doctor had assessed the disability of the appellant at 15%. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. It is evident from the records that the appellant had sustained facial injuries besides the fracture and other simple injuries. The injuries caused to the appellant would cause inconvenience and discomfort for the rest of his life. In view of the same, it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities. No compensation is awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during hospitalization period. It has come on record that the appellant was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. In view of the same, it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities. No compensation is awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during hospitalization period. It has come on record that the appellant was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. In the absence of cogent evidence available on record, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 4,000/- which is reasonable. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during hospitalization period. No compensation is awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges, nourishment of food, conveyance etc., albeit the appellant was an inpatient for 11 days and he had visited the hospital for further treatment as an outpatient. Considering these aspects, I deem it proper to award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant, nourishment charges, conveyance etc. In all other respects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal remains unaltered. 11. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.] 1. Pain and sufferings 25,000/- 2. Medical Expenses 12,000/- 3. Loss of earnings due to disability 36,000/- 4. Loss of amenities 15,000/- 5. Loss of income during laid up period 12,000/- 6. Attendant charges, food and nourishment, conveyance etc., 10,000/- Total 1,10,000/- 12. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to Rs. 1,10,000/- as against Rs. 78,000/-. However, the appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 55,000/- after deducing contributory negligence of 50% along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.