JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 6-9-2012 made in MVC No.254/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal' for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 6-4-2011, while he was proceeding from Chitradurga towards Bagenahal as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-51/J-9197 ridden by one Krishnachary, when they reached near Harsha Farm, Belagatta village, the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.KA-16/B-3969 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, rider as well as the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to District Hospital, Chitradurga. Subsequently, he was shifted to Apoorva Hospital at Davanagere, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for a period of one month and has undergone surgery, he has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards his treatment. Prior to the accident, he was doing carpentry and blacksmith work, earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. In view of the injuries sustained he has become permanently disabled to do the work which he was doing prior to the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus which was insured with second respondent-insurance company and hence, both the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the claimant to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. 3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance. The second respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Further alleged that the driver of the bus did not possess the valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, the DL, FC, and RC have not been produced. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 5. The claimant, in order to prove his care got examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor who treated him was examined as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P232. On behalf of the respondents, one of the officials of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 5. The claimant, in order to prove his care got examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor who treated him was examined as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P232. On behalf of the respondents, one of the officials of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration, the IMV report, spot panchanama and copy of the complaint held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the bus as well as rider of the motorcycle. The bus was proceeding on the eastern side of the road i.e. on the left side of the road, whereas the rider of the motorcycle was proceeding on the right side and came on the wrong side. In view of the head-on collision between the two vehicles, the accident occurred. Hence, 30% liability was fastened on the rider of the motorcycle and remaining 70% was fastened on the bus. 7. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing carpentry work, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The Tribunal taking into consideration the income as Rs.5,000/- p.m., taking the disability to an extent of 15% since the doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 60% to the right lower limb, applying the multiplier 14 since the claimant was of the age group between 41 to 45 years, awarded compensation of Rs.1,26,000/- towards future loss of income; Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. In all, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,06,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Since there was contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle to an extent of 30%, and that the owner as well as the insurance company of the motorcycle were not made parties to the proceedings, the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,44,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and fastening contributory negligence to an extent of 30% on the part of rider of the motorcycle has filed this appeal. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri. N. Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. M. Narayanappa, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. Perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 9. The dispute in this appeal is quantum of compensation and fastening 30% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 10. With regard to contributory negligence is concerned, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the insurance company has not taken any specific contention in the written statement in this regard. During the course of evidence also, some suggestion was made with regard to contributory negligence. Unless there being specific defense, new ground cannot be taken up with regard to contributory negligence. There is some substance in the said submission. On perusal of the written statement, it is clear that nowhere in the written statement the insurance company has taken any specific defence with regard to contributory negligence, though there is head-on collision. In the evidence, some stray sentence has been made with regard to contributory negligence. However, the same has not been proved by the insurance company, in accordance with law, by leading evidence. In this regard, sketch of the accident has not been produced before the Tribunal. The police also have not drawn any sketch. Further, the IMV report and spot panchanama clearly disclose that the bus was coming on left side of the road and the motorcycle was coming on the opposite direction. There was head-on collision between the bus as well as the motorcycle. The spot mahazar and the IMV report do not mention anything about the motorcycle being ridden on the wrong side. There was head-on collision between the bus as well as the motorcycle. The spot mahazar and the IMV report do not mention anything about the motorcycle being ridden on the wrong side. The width of the road was 14 feet Tar road and mud road on both sides. In the spot mahazar, there is no mentioning about riding of the motorcycle on the wrong side. Nobody has lead any evidence with regard to contributory negligence and how the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle came in the wrong side is not made known. In the absence of evidence on record, the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence to an extent of 30% on the part of rider of the motorcycle is contrary to law. The insurance company was also not serious about the contributory negligence and no evidence has been lead in this regard. Hence, finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is not based on any evidence and the order passed in this regard is to be set aside and the liability has to be fastened on the insurer of the bus. 11. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained comminuted fracture of lower end of right femur. He has undergone surgery internal fixation has been made. He was inpatient for a period of 62 days for different intermittent period. After discharge, he once again got admitted to the hospital for removal of the pus. He was under the treatment for a period of nearly one year. A sum of Rs.35,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is lower side. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone, it is appropriate to award another sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering in addition to Rs.35,000/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during the laid up period. In view of the injuries sustained, he was out of employment for a period of 3 months. Taking the monthly income of Rs.6,500/- he is entitled to a sum of Rs.19,500/- towards loss of earning during the laid up period. Further, no compensation has been awarded towards attendant charges, nourishment and hospitalization and other incidental expenses. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 62 days. Taking the monthly income of Rs.6,500/- he is entitled to a sum of Rs.19,500/- towards loss of earning during the laid up period. Further, no compensation has been awarded towards attendant charges, nourishment and hospitalization and other incidental expenses. The claimant was inpatient for a period of 62 days. Hence he is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, nourishment and other incidental life with the disability of 60% to the right lower limb and a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards loss of amenities of life is lower side. Hence, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Further, the accident in the year 2011. The monthly of the claimant taken by Tribunal at Rs.5,000/- is lower side. The claimant was a blacksmith and doing carpentry work. Hence, taking his monthly at Rs.6,500/-, considering 15% disability to the whole body, applying the multiplier 14 since he was under the age group 41 to 45 years, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,63,800/- towards future loss of income as against Rs.1,26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,13,300/- thereby he is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,07,300/- in addition to Rs.2,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 6-9-2011 made in MVC No.254/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga is modified. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,07,300/- in addition to Rs.2,06,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence to an extent of 30% on the part of rider of the motorcycle is set aside.