JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals have arisen out of a single Judgment and award passed in MVC No.624/2011 dated 24.04.2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, (henceforth for brevity called as ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellant in MFA No.22748/2013 was the claimant in the Tribunal, whereas, the other MFA No.22674/2013 is filed by the Insurer, which was the respondent No.2 in the Tribunal. 3. MFA No.22748/2013 has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The compensation towards pain and sufferings and ancillary expenses ought to have been enhanced. With this he has prayed for an enhancement of compensation without mentioning the quantum of enhancement sought for by him. 4. In MFA No.22674/2013, the appellant which was the Insurance Company in the Tribunal, has contended that the claimant was the driver of tempo trax, who had parked the said vehicle on a National Highway without any precaution or safety measures being taken by him. He had neither put indicators nor put stones around the vehicle as such he was also equally liable in causing the accident, thus there is contributory negligence of 50:50% which aspect the Tribunal did not notice. Further stating that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the alleged disability at 100%, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the Judgment and award under appeal. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant has filed I.A.No.1/2013 under order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the column 21 and all concerned paragraphs of the claim petition by substituting and adding an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in place of Rs.15,00,000/-. In the affidavit, accompanying the application, the claimant has stated that both in his claim petition as well in his evidence he has claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, but the same was due to oversight and by bonafide mistake. As such now he intends to claim compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-, and it is for this amount he has prayed for permission to amend in his claim petition. The said I.A.No.1/2017 was also taken up for its hearing and disposal along with the main appeal with the consent from both sides. 6. Heard the arguments from both side. As such now he intends to claim compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/-, and it is for this amount he has prayed for permission to amend in his claim petition. The said I.A.No.1/2017 was also taken up for its hearing and disposal along with the main appeal with the consent from both sides. 6. Heard the arguments from both side. The learned counsel from both side reiterated the contentions taken up by them in their respective memorandum of appeal even in their arguments also. Perused the materials placed before us. 7. The points that arise for our consideration are; (i) Whether I.A.No.1/2017 deserves to be allowed? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, requires to be enhanced by allowing MFA No.22748/2013? (iii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal, holding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49/1575 in the occurrence of the accident, was erroneous? 8. The summary of the case of the claimant in the Tribunal, wherein he had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (henceforth for brevity called as ‘the Act’) was that on 18.02.2011 at about 11:15 a.m. near Bennali village on Poona-Bengaluru road, while he was replacing the punctured wheel of his vehicle, the Truck bearing registration No.KL-17/E-1804, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed to him resulting in an accident. In the said accident, he sustained severe injuries which has ultimately resulted in the amputation of his left lower limb above knee and has disabled him permanently. Arraying the owners and insurers of both vehicles as liable to pay him compensation, he had claimed a compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from them. The Tribunal after recording the evidence led before it and hearing both the side, by its impugned Judgment and award dated 24.04.2013 was pleased to allow the claim petition holding that the claimant was entitled for a compensation of a sum of Rs.15,69,260/- with interest at 6% per annum thereupon from respondent Nos.1 & 2 before it. The claim against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was dismissed. 9. The date, place and time of occurrence of accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the claimant is entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The claim against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was dismissed. 9. The date, place and time of occurrence of accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the claimant is entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. However, the claimant has claimed the enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to him as per the table shown below: 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 2 Medical and ancillary expensesRs.1,07,260+10,000/- Rs.1,17,260/- 3 Loss of future income due to disability Rs.11,52,000/- 4 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.50,000/- 5 Expenses towards procurement of artificial limb Rs.2,00,000/- Total    Rs.15,69,260/- 10. The evidence of claimant as PW-1 and the evidence of the doctor as PW-2 coupled with details shown in the wound certificate at Ex.P-5 go to show that apart from multiple abrasions, the claimant had also sustained compound comminuted fracture of tibia and fibula of left side, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th metatarsal bone fracture on the right, proximal phalanx 1st, 2nd and 5th fractures and missing of 1st & 2nd distal phalanx and 5th fracture right. The compensation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings for these injuries appears to be marginally shorter to a reasonable compensation. As such, the claimant is entitled for an enhancement of Rs.30,000/- under the said head. After taking into consideration of 53 medical bills and 26 prescriptions produced by the claimant under Ex.P-14 & Ex.P-15, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,07,260/- towards medical expenses. Since the entire amount proved through bills and receipts have been awarded, there is no necessity to enhance the medical expenses further. Anyhow, considering the circumstance of the case and the nature of injuries and also his inpatient period in the hospital from 18.02.2011 to 07.03.2011, the compensation awarded towards ancillary expenses which is at Rs.10,000/-requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.10,000/-. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant in his argument submitted that the income of the claimant is required to be taken at a higher amount, whereas, the Tribunal has taken the same at Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant in his argument submitted that the income of the claimant is required to be taken at a higher amount, whereas, the Tribunal has taken the same at Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently submitted that both the pleading and the evidence of the claimant in the Tribunal was to the extent that his income was Rs.6,000/- per month as such what is pleaded and adduced in the evidence has been fully accepted by the Tribunal. The claimant both in his claim petition as well in his evidence as PW-1 has categorically stated that at the time of accident as a driver his monthly income was Rs.6,000/- only. The Tribunal without any second thought has accepted the said income as contended by the claimant himself. Therefore, when the claimant himself has voluntarily declared his income at a particular quantum both in his claim petition as well in his evidence there would be no point in escalating the said income without any basis. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant that the monthly income of the claimant is to be enhanced, is not acceptable. The claimant got examined one Sri Prakash Wali said to be a medical practitioner as PW-2 who in his evidence has deposed that he has assessed the physical disability of the claimant and has arrived at a opinion that the patient was suffering with 80% disability in relation to left lower limb and 45% in relation to the right lower limb. Even though the respondent-Insurance Company disputed the same but the Tribunal noticing that the claimant was Driver by occupation has taken his alleged permanent disability at 100%. As such by accepting the alleged monthly income of the claimant in its entirety so also the fullest extent of the disability, the Tribunal with the proper application of the multiplier at ‘17’ has awarded a compensation towards ‘loss of future income’ due to disability at Rs.11,52,000/-. Since, the reasoning given to award the said sum is convincing, there is no scope of enhancement of the compensation under the said head. Similarly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of amenities and future unhappiness’ and expenses towards procurement of artificial limb being reasonable amount does not warrant any enhancement under the said head. Since, the reasoning given to award the said sum is convincing, there is no scope of enhancement of the compensation under the said head. Similarly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of amenities and future unhappiness’ and expenses towards procurement of artificial limb being reasonable amount does not warrant any enhancement under the said head. As such, in total the claimant is entitled for enhancement of a sum of Rs.40,000/- which is in addition to the compensation of the sum of Rs.15,69,260/- awarded by the Tribunal. Since, the enhancement is considered in this appeal, even after noticing that the original claim amount claimed by the claimant in his petition was only for Rs.15,00,000/- whereas, the Tribunal has granted Rs.15,69,260/- more than what was claimed and also for the reason that no cogent reasons are shown for amending the claim petition, the payer of the claimant in I.A.No.1/2017 for permission to amend his claim petition is not acceptable. 12. The Insurance Company of the Truck bearing registration No.KL-17/E-1804 in its appeal in MFA No.22674/2013 has taken a contention of the contributory negligence and stated that the claimant ought to have been saddled with 50% of liability in causing the accident. No doubt the case of the claimant is that while he was changing the punctured wheel of his vehicle, the offending lorry came and dashed to him. The contention of the insurer of the Truck is that, the claimant had not exhibited the proper indications or signals about he changing the punctured wheel of the vehicle by parking his vehicle on the road, as such there is contributory negligence on his part also. In the criminal case registered with the police with respect to the accident in question, the complainant is none else then the claimant himself. In his complaint which is marked at Ex.P-2 in the Tribunal, the claimant is shown to have stated that on the date of accident, he was taking his motor vehicle Trax loaded with Bisleri packed water bottles for its supply and heading from Gokak towards Belagavi. Near Bennali village due to puncture of the back wheel of the said vehicle he stopped his vehicle on the side of the National Highway and was replacing the punctured wheel. Near Bennali village due to puncture of the back wheel of the said vehicle he stopped his vehicle on the side of the National Highway and was replacing the punctured wheel. At that time by 11:15 a.m. the offending Truck being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the backside of his Trax vehicle, in which accident he was caught below the said trax vehicle and when the offending truck dragged the trax further, he sustained multiple injuries. Therefore at the first instance, the claimant himself narrating the incident has clearly stated that the offending vehicle not only dashed to his stationary vehicle but also dragged the said stationary vehicle for a distance which inflicted in multiple aggravated injuries upon the claimant. 13. The Scene of offence (spot panchanama) at Ex.P-3 and sketch map of the seen of accident at Ex.P-4 goes to show that at the time of accident, the claimant had parked his Trax vehicle on the eastern side of the tar road at a distance of about 5 feet from the eastern edge. The width of the road after the divider is shown at 30 feet. Therefore from the sketch itself it is clear that even after taking the covered area on the road by the parked vehicle of the claimant still there was a distance of 20 feet width on the road in which open clear road the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.KL-17/E-1804 could have easily passed through. Therefore, when there was sufficient unabated clear space for the offending vehicle to pass through it cannot be said that there was any negligence even a contributory one from the side of the claimant in causing accident. On the other hand, the manner of occurrence of the accident wherein the offending truck dashed the parked Trax vehicle from its backside and dragged the said vehicle for a considerable distance on the road beneath which vehicle the claimant was caught, makes it clear that the driver of the truck was very much rash and negligent in his driving and did not even notice the parked vehicle in a bright day light at 11:15 a.m. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly answered the additional issue in the negative by holding that the driver of the vehicle bearing KA-49/1575 has not contributed in the negligence for occurrence of accident. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company in MFA No.22674/2013 regarding contributory negligence is not acceptable. In view of the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER MFA No.22748/2013 is allowed in part. The Judgment and award dated 24.04.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.624/2011, is modified to the extent that the compensation of a sum of Rs.15,69,260/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs.40,000/-, thus making it Rs.16,09,260/-. The remaining part of the Judgment and award under appeal with respect to awarding the interest, its rate, liability of respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein to pay awarded compensation and the terms of release of the amount after fixed deposit shall all remain unaltered. I.A.No.1/2013 filed in MFA No.22748/2013 is dismissed. MFA No.22674/2013 is dismissed. The registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit made by the appellant in MFA No.22674/2013, if any in the registry to the concerned Tribunal without any delay. Draw modified award accordingly.