JUDGMENT : Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of both the parties, the same is heard for final disposal. 2. Heard Shri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant and Shri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for the contesting 3rd respondent-insurer, perused the records. 3. The injured claimant has preferred this appeal, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned Judgment dated 03.05.2013, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, made in MVC No.1001/2011, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. The facts of the case are that on 13.06.2011 at about 7.45 hours, when the injured-claimant was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-R-8934 from Belanje towards Ampar side, the bus bearing No.KA-20-A-7089 coming from opposite side, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and took treatment at Chinmayi hospital, Kundapura. On account of disability sustained by him, due to the injuries sustained by him, he could not perform his work, as he was doing earlier to the accident. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section-166 of the I.M.V. Act, 1988, seeking compensation. 5. Despite service of notice, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle (bus), did not appear and they were placed exparte before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent-insurer appeared through an Advocate, before the Tribunal, filed their written statement and contested the claim petition. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimant has established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and its insurance coverage with the 3rd respondent herein and the same has remained unchallenged either by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer. 6. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimant has established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and its insurance coverage with the 3rd respondent herein and the same has remained unchallenged either by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer. 6. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of both the driver of the bus as well as the rider of the motorcycle and consequently apportioned contributory negligence in the ratio of 90% on the driver of the bus and 10% on the rider of the motorcycle and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit under the following heads. Sl. No. Headings Amount Rs. 1. Pain and agony 60,000 2. Medical expenses, conveyance, special diet, nourishment, and attendant charges’ 1,00,000 3. Loss of income during treatment period 60,000 4. Future loss of income or future loss of earning capacity, compensation towards future loss of amenities in life 1,75,000 5. Future medical expenses 25,000 Total 4,20,000 7. The learned counsel for the appellant made three fold submissions. Firstly, he contended that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the compensation payable towards ‘loss of future earnings’ and ‘loss of amenities’ together and it ought to have assessed compensation separately, instead awarding compensation together. Secondly he submitted that the offending vehicle being the bus, which is a heavy vehicle and since the injured was a rider of motorcycle which is a light vehicle and riding the same on the left side of the road, the driver of the bus had contributed 100% negligence in causing the accident. As such, the Tribunal has committed an error in apportioning 10% contributory negligence on the injured-claimant. Lastly, while drawing the attention of the Court to the additional documents produced along with IA-1/2016, he submits that after the judgment and award, the claimant had incurred an amount of Rs.75,000/- for further treatment and prays for grant of additional compensation towards medical expenses. 8. Lastly, while drawing the attention of the Court to the additional documents produced along with IA-1/2016, he submits that after the judgment and award, the claimant had incurred an amount of Rs.75,000/- for further treatment and prays for grant of additional compensation towards medical expenses. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer-3rd respondent herein vehemently submitted that the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record in proper perspective, has rightly assessed the income of the injured and awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. However, he fairly submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘loss of amenities/loss of future earning’ is requires to be bifurcated and separate compensation is requires to be determined under the above heads. 9. On a careful evaluation of the material on record, particularly, wound certificate Ex.P.4, discloses that the injured suffered right thigh is deformed painful abnormal mobility at middle 1/3 laceration right thigh 4 x 2 cms, fracture exposed compound and X-ray shows comminuted fracture of femur, right hip swollen, movements L1 and other injuries. The doctor had opined that injuries 1, 2 & 5 are grievous and injuries-3, 4, 6 & 7 are simple in nature and he took treatment from 13-6-2011 to 26-6-2011 and again admitted on 5-8-2011 and discharged on 06-08-2011. The doctor who treated the injured and issued disability certificate Ex.P.16 has been examined as PW.2, opined that the injured has suffered permanent physical disability of 36% to his lower limb and 15% to the whole body. While determining/assessing the compensation payable to the victims of the road traffic accident, the Tribunal requires quantifying the compensation payable under each and every heads. In the case on hand, the Tribunal was not justified in clubbing the compensation payable towards ‘loss of future earnings’ and ‘loss of amenities’. It ought to have quantified the compensation payable under these heads separately. Though the doctor has opined that there was 15% permanent/physical disability to the whole body, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to take the functional disability at 12% as against 15% assessed by the Doctor. Thus, the injured-claimant is entitled Rs.2,30,400/ (Rs.10,000x12x16/100=2,30,400/-) as against Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Though the doctor has opined that there was 15% permanent/physical disability to the whole body, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to take the functional disability at 12% as against 15% assessed by the Doctor. Thus, the injured-claimant is entitled Rs.2,30,400/ (Rs.10,000x12x16/100=2,30,400/-) as against Rs.1,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, period of treatment and consequential permanent physical disability sustained by the claimant and the future mental agony that may be suffered by him, it would be just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’. The claimant-appellant has filed IA-1/2016 and produced discharge summary issued by the Malya Hospital, Bengaluru. On careful perusal of the same it is seen that a surgery was done on the claimant for ‘arthroscopic PCL reconstruction with hamstrings graft with end button under SA on 04.07.2015’. Though it is claimed that the claimant had spent nearly Rs.75,000/- for the said surgery, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to award another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical charges. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference and the same shall remain un-changed. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,50,400/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand four hundred only) as against Rs.4,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would comes to Rs.1,30,400/-. 10. Thus, it takes me to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, as regards 10% contributory negligence on the part of the injured-claimant. As discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph-15 of its judgment, the accident occurred in the road having width of 14 feet wherein there was a deep curve and the bus was moving towards down gradients and the injured-claimant was moving towards up gradient on his motorcycle. Even though the claimant has admitted that he had seen the bus at the distance of 10 feet and even though he was riding the motorcycle at 25 kms speed, he would have taken his motorcycle towards his left side to avoid the accident. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in apportioning the contributory negligence of 10% on the rider of the motorcycle (injured-claimant). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in apportioning the contributory negligence of 10% on the rider of the motorcycle (injured-claimant). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned Judgment and award dated 03.05.2013, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, in M.V.C. No.1001/2011, the compensation payable to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.4,20,000/- to Rs. 5,50,400/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand four hundred only). The enhanced compensation comes to Rs.1,30,400/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand four hundred only). If 10% is deducted from out of the enhanced compensation, on account of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the net enhanced compensation would come to Rs.1,17,360/-. As, the claimant is not entitled to claim interest on Rs.50,000/- awarded in this appeal, towards ‘medical allowance’, the insurer-respondent No.3 herein shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,17,360/- before the concerned Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. However, interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be applicable only in respect of Rs.67,360/-. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.