JUDGMENT : B. MANOHAR, J. 1. Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No. 1635/2012 dated 24th April, 2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition contending that on 20th May, 2012 at about 5.30 p.m., while he was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-09/EC-1196 towards Srirangapatna, near Pashchimavahini River Tank bed, a bus bearing Registration No. KL-05/ U-1890 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore, thereafter he took treatment as inpatient in the Government Hospital at Hassan. However, as per the advice of the doctor, he took treatment at Wen-lock hospital at Mangalore as inpatient for a period of 30 days. During the course of treatment, initially his right leg was amputated below the knee, subsequently, his right leg was amputated above the knee. At the time of accident, he was aged about 25 years, doing agricultural work and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. He claims that he has spent more than Rs. 2,00,000/- towards his treatment. Due to the negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus, which was insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company, the accident occurred. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimant to an extent of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the owner of the bus was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The Insurance Company defended the case by filing the written statement and contended that due to the negligence on the part of the claimant himself, the accident occurred. The rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the offending bus were not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 5. The rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the offending bus were not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 5. The claimant, in order to prove his case got examined himself as P.W.1, the doctor who treated him was examined as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses were examined nor has any document been marked. 6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration spot mahazar, copy of the complaint and charge sheet, held that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and hence the claimant is entitled to compensation. 7. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant has not produced any document to show that he was earning Rs. 10,000/ - p.m., by doing agricultural work. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal had taken the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- p.m. In the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of right leg and other injuries. During the course of treatment, his right leg was amputated on 6th June, 2016. The claimant has become permanently disabled to do any work. The doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 80%. The Tribunal reckoning the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- p.m., taking the disability to an extent of 35% to the whole body and applying the multiplier of 18 since he was aged about 25 years at the time of accident, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards future loss of income; Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenditure; Rs. 6,000/- towards food and nourishment; Rs. 4,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards medical attendants. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,44,000/ - with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Sri. 4,000/- towards medical attendants. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,44,000/ - with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Sri. Girish Baladare, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, the quantum of compensation awarded under all the heads is lower side; the accident is of the year 2012; the monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- taken by the Tribunal is very meager. Even the income of daily wage employees working in various Government Departments is being taken as Rs. 7,000/- p.m. In view of amputation of right leg above the knee, the doctor has assessed the disability to an extent of 80%. The Tribunal without assigning any reasons, considered the disability to an extent of 35% to the whole body while assessing future loss of income, which is contrary to law. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of marriage prospects, artificial limb and also towards loss of amenities of life. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is very meager. The claimant was out of employment for a period of 3 months, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head is very meager. The compensation of Rs. 4,000/- awarded towards medical attendants is also on the lower side. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation. 9. On the other hand, Sri. B. Pradeep, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Company argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. However, during the course of arguments, he admitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of marriage prospects, towards artificial limb and loss of amenities of life. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation. 11. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute. The accident occurred on 20th May, 2012. The monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- by the Tribunal is lower side. Even though the claimant has not produced any document in support of his income, the Tribunal ought to have reckoned the reasonable income while awarding compensation. 11. The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute. The accident occurred on 20th May, 2012. The monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- by the Tribunal is lower side. Even though the claimant has not produced any document in support of his income, the Tribunal ought to have reckoned the reasonable income while awarding compensation. In the instant case, I deem it appropriate to reckon the income of the claimant as Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Even the daily wage employees working in various Government Departments would earn more than Rs. 7,000/- p.m. Further, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for amputation of the leg above the knee, the disability has to be considered as 80%. In the instant case, though the doctor has assessed disability to an extent of 80% for the amputation of right leg above the knee, the Tribunal has considered only 35%, which is contrary to law. Hence, taking the income of the claimant as Rs. 7,000/- p.m., disability to an extent of 80% and applying the multiplier of 18 as he was aged about 25 years at the time of accident, the claimant is entitled Lo a sum of Rs. 12,09,600/- towards future loss of income as against Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities of life. The claimant has to lead his remaining life with the disability of 80%. Hence, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - towards loss of amenities of life. In view of amputation of leg above the knee, his marriage prospects has been affected. Hence, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. Further, the claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards artificial limb. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side. Immediately after the accident, the claimant got admitted to K.R. Hospital at Mysore, thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital at Hassan, from there he was shifted to Wen-lock hospital at Mangalore at the advice of the doctors, wherein, initially his right leg was amputated below the knee. Subsequently, once again, he had undergone surgery and his right leg was amputated above the knee below the hip. He was inpatient for a period of 30 days. Subsequently, once again, he had undergone surgery and his right leg was amputated above the knee below the hip. He was inpatient for a period of 30 days. Thereafter he had taken follow-up treatment for a period of three months. Hence, he is entitled to another sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards pain and suffering in addition to Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant was out of employment for a period of 3 months, hence a sum of Rs. 4,000/- awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period is on the lower side. Hence, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 17,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period, considering the income of the claimant as Rs. 7,000/- p.m. The claimant is also entitled to another sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards medical attendants in addition to Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenditure and food and nourishment remain unaltered. Taking into consideration the fact that at the age of 25 years, the claimant has become permanently disabled to do any work. Hence, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 14,61,600/- as against Rs. 3,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER I. The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 24th April, 2013 made in MVC No. 1635/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan is modified. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 14,61,600/- as against Rs. 3,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. II. Out of the enhanced compensation amount, 50% shall be released in favour of the claimant and remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of 3 years, with liberty to the claimant to withdraw the accrued interest periodically.