JUDGMENT : N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company seeking setting aside of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 1306/2014, dated 4-11-2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur wherein the claimant therein was awarded compensation of Rs. 3,81,520/- together with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition by the later as against the claimed amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. 2. To avoid confusions and overlapping, the parties are hereafter are addressed with reference to their respective rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The claim petition came to be filed in MVC No. 1306/2014 because of the road traffic accident which occurred on 4-3-2014. 4. On 4-3-2014 at about 11.00 a.m., petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing Reg. No. K.A. 11-W-0993 from Maddur towards Vaidyanathapura Nagarakere main road. Meanwhile a stray dog came across the motorcycle. The rider in order to avoid the dog applied sudden break, because of which lost control and the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. 5. He claims that he was treated at Government Hospital, Maddur and spent Rs. 2 lacs towards medical expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards food, transportation and incidental charges. Also claims that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month prior to accident. The owner of the vehicle who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal contended that his vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and in case of any compensation payable it has to be by the insurance company. 6. The insurance company-appellant contended that the vehicle in question was not insured and the rider had no valid and proper driving license. 7. Heard both the parties. Perused the records. 8. On the basis of the material propositions asserted by one party, denied by the other, and available materials, the Tribunal framed issues regarding the accident, dated 4-3-2014, negligence, grievous injuries to claimant and his entitlement for compensation. The petitioner therein examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. Girishchandra as CW1. Exs. P1 to P9 which included FIR, charge sheet, IMV report, medical prescriptions and X-rays. The Tribunal also perused Exs. C1 to C 3. The insurance company examined RW1 - Shivamadaiah, RW2-Dr. K. M. Basavaraju and RW3- Sridhar and got marked Exs. R1 to R5 including the insurance policy. 9. Girishchandra as CW1. Exs. P1 to P9 which included FIR, charge sheet, IMV report, medical prescriptions and X-rays. The Tribunal also perused Exs. C1 to C 3. The insurance company examined RW1 - Shivamadaiah, RW2-Dr. K. M. Basavaraju and RW3- Sridhar and got marked Exs. R1 to R5 including the insurance policy. 9. The Insurance company has denied the claim in principle including the accident, injuries to appellant and disability of 42% for particular limb. The doctor who was examined as CW1 certifies that the claimant suffered 42% of permanent disability on the left lower limb. But the same is not explained. In this connection the Tribunal accepts the disability at 12%. Insofar as the monthly income of the claimant prior to the date of incident is claimed at Rs. 15,000/- from car driving and Rs. 5,000/- from agriculture. The Tribunal considers it at Rs. 6,000/- as his notional monthly income. 10. Thus, the loss of income to the claimant is calculated at Rs. 6,000/- (monthly income) x 12 x 18 = 12,96,000 x 12/100 = Rs. 1,55,520/- and insofar as medical expenses are concerned considering the surgery and incidental expenses incurred, Tribunal awarded Rs. 35,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities at Rs. 20,000/-, regarding medical expenses considering the medical bills submitted by the claimant, the Tribunal rounded up Rs. 1,45,907/- to Rs. 1,53,000/-. Insofar as the claim for loss of income during the laid up period considering the period of three months, income of Rs. 6,000/- per month, granted Rs. 18,000/- and totally granted Rs. 3,81,520/- together with interest 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. 11. The doctor RW2 who was examined on the side of the insurance company, deposed that petitioner was a pillion rider on the motorcycle on 4-3-2014. The substance of stand of the insurance company is that injury if at all sustained by the claimant, was only due to self fall from the motorcycle. 12. It is necessary to mention the claim of the petitioner that he was a pillion rider and a dog came in the way and the rider lost the control and due to sudden stop he fell down and sustained injuries leading disability. The insurance company denies the claim by stating that the medical documents are opposite to the version of the claimant. The insurance company denies the claim by stating that the medical documents are opposite to the version of the claimant. In this connection it is necessary to mention that the complaint was filed and case was registered on 4-3-2014 in Cri. No. 101/2014. Thereafter the final report was filed by the Police for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337, I.P.C. Insofar as the wound certificate Ex.P5 is concerned, it is issued by the doctor general hospital having examined the injured on 4-3-2014 at 1.05 p.m. 13. Insofar as the document Ex.R5 marked on behalf of the insurance company the relevant extract reflects as under : "patient has a h/o fall from the bike on 3-3-2014 at 6.30 p.m., trying to avoid a dog. Fell down and sustained injuries to the left leg-knee". 14. Ex.R4 which is also certified copy of medical document (AR extract) it is noted as ' alleged history h/o RTA fall from bike KA-11-W-0993 at Vaidyanathapura on 4-3-2014 at 11.00 a.m., and he was sitting in back seat. 15. A careful reading of Exs. P4, R4 and R5, the claim of the insurance company is not supported by attendant circumstances. In fact though the total disability to the claimant is taken at 12% as against the limb disability of 42%, 12/42 and less than the normal standard of ? i.e., 14%. However, it appears that the claimant is satisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 3,81,520/- with interest at 7% p.a. and appears to be just compensation in the circumstances. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-claimant made a false claim only in order to get the compensation for injuries because of the accident, dated 4-3-2014, but claims that there was neither injury nor accident as claimed by the claimant, when there is written medical document evidence Ex. R5 filed from the side of insurance and the substance (fall from by sitting in back seat). 17. In the over all context of the case, the total break up of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : 1. Future loss of income : Rs. 1,55,520 2. Pain and suffering : Rs. 35,000 3. Loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000 4. Medical expenses : Rs. 1,53,000 5. Loss of earnings during laid up Period : Rs. 18,000 Total : Rs. 3,81,520 18. Future loss of income : Rs. 1,55,520 2. Pain and suffering : Rs. 35,000 3. Loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000 4. Medical expenses : Rs. 1,53,000 5. Loss of earnings during laid up Period : Rs. 18,000 Total : Rs. 3,81,520 18. In the circumstances of the facts, the insurance company claims that there was no accident leading to injuries and disability to the claimant. 19. In this connection the reading of the medical documents clearly suggests that there is no occasion to believe the version of the insurance company that injury was self inflicted due to fall from the vehicle. Insurer cannot claim to supply the benefit of the said stand. Sustaining injuries resulting from the accident is admitted in the context. 20. Thus considering the accident, dated 4-3-2014 injuries suffered by the claimant, the petition averments and the defense, the Court is of the considered finding that there are no irregularity, infirmity or unreason ability in the judgment and award nor it granted exorbitant compensation. In the result the amount of compensation stands the test of just compensation. 21. Thus, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned judgment and award and appeal is liable to be rejected. 22. Hence appeal stands rejected. 23. In these circumstances, no order as to cost.