JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2, perused the records. 2. The injured-claimant has preferred this appeal, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2015, passed by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, in MVC. No.1118/2013, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The facts of the case are that on 16.02.2013 at about 7.30 p.m, when the injured-claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-46-E-7808 and when he reached near Anemahal, in front of Surabhi Hotel, Sakaleshpura, the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA- 18-A-200 came from Kadumane side, driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against him. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his head, blood was clotting near brain, stomach and as a result, his intestine was cut up to 4 feet, injuries on his left hand small finger and ring finger, face, ear and other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to Crawford Hospital, Sakaleshpura and thereafter shifted to SSM hospital, Hassan and further he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as inpatient for 17 days, during which, he underwent surgery to his intestine. Hence, he filed a claim petition under Section-166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation for the injuries and consequential disability sustained by him in the accident. 4. After service of notice, the 1st respondent remained absent and respondent No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed objections. 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 vehicle (KSRTC bus) and its insurance coverage and the same has remain unchallenged either by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer. 5. The Tribunal, after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and consequently awarded total compensation of Rs.2,07,700/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization under the following heads. Sl No Headings Amount Rs. Sl No Headings Amount Rs. 1 Pain and suffering 20,000 2 Loss of income during treatment period 12,000 3 Medical expenses 92,500 4 Loss of future earning 61,200 5 Future amenities 10,000 6 Conveyance, nourishment, diet and attendant charges 12,000 Total 2,07,700 6. Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that despite the fact that the accident was of the year 2013, the tribunal erred in assessing the income of the injured at Rs.6000/- and it ought to have taken the income of the injured at Rs.8000/- per month. During the treatment/surgery, major portion of the small intestine of the claimant has been removed. Though the Doctor (PW.2) had assessed the disability at 18%, factually there was 100% disability sustained by the claimant and hence, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the disability at 5% to calculate the compensation payable towards 'loss of future income'. She further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all other heads is on the lower side and hence, she prays for enhancement in the compensation. 7. Per contra, Shri. B. Palakshaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that in the absence of established income of the injured, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the injured notionally at Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded just and fair compensation. Further, drawing the attention of the Court to page No. 125 & 126 of the medical records of KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru which has been marked as Ex.C- 1, he vehemently submitted there was additional insertion in the OPD slip, as regards blunt injuries to abdomen and there was overwritten in the medical record. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence and material on record in proper perspective, awarded just and reasonable compensation and hence, the same does not calls for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. PW.1 Ashok.N.T., the injured has deposed in his deposition that he was owning a copy plant, in which, he used to grow coffee, black pepper, orange and cardamom and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. But, the RTC., produced by him shows that 12 acres of land was standing in the name of his parents. In the absence of documentary evidence in proof of the income of the injured, the Tribunal took the income of the injured at Rs.6000/- per month. But, the RTC., produced by him shows that 12 acres of land was standing in the name of his parents. In the absence of documentary evidence in proof of the income of the injured, the Tribunal took the income of the injured at Rs.6000/- per month. The fact that the parents of the injured had 12 acre of coffee plant is not in dispute and the injured being the son of the owner of the land could definitely assist their aged parents in growing the above crops. Keeping in view that the accident was of the year 2013, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6000/- per month is slightly on the lower side. Hence, it is just and appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured at Rs.7000/- per month, which would meet ends of justice. 9. Thus, it takes me to the next submission as regards assessment of physical disability sustained by the injured. PW.2 Doctor Narayanaswamy.T, the Associate Professor and general Surgeon of KIMS hospital Bengaluru has been examined as PW.2 through Court Commissioner. He has deposed that the injured has been admitted at 4.00 a.m on 17.02.2013 with the following injuries. (1) Blunt injury to abdomen (2) Broken bone of left ring finger (3) Chronic subdural hemotoma (4) Tenderness over the left hand. The wound certificate Ex.P.5 indicates that injury No.1 is simple in nature and injuries 2 to 4 are grievous in nature. On 17.02.2013, surgery was conducted on the injured, in which, his small intestine to an extent of 15 to 20 feet has been removed and he was discharged on 06.03.2013 with an instruction to take further follow up treatment. The entire medical records has been marked as Ex.C- 1 & C-2. The Doctor had assessed the permanent disability to whole body at 18% as against which, the Tribunal has taken 5% to determine the compensation towards 'loss of future income'. Though the learned counsel for the respondent-insurer strongly disputes the medical evidence, in the absence of any appeal filed by the insurer, the medical evidence available on record cannot be completely brushed aside. Though the learned counsel for the respondent-insurer strongly disputes the medical evidence, in the absence of any appeal filed by the insurer, the medical evidence available on record cannot be completely brushed aside. Initially, the injured was treated at Crawford Hospital at Sakaleshpura, thereafter he was shifted to SSM Hospital at Hassan and thereafter he was shifted to Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 17 days, during which, he undergone surgery of intestine. The surgery conducted on the injured would definitely come in the way of his usual avocation and future earnings. Having regard to the nature of injuries, period of treatment, consequential disability sustained by him, and looking to the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the disability of 5% assessed by the Tribunal and compensation awarded towards 'loss of future income' is on the lower side. Interest of justice would be met, if the income of the injured is taken at Rs.7000/- per months and the permanent physical disability at 10% to determine the compensation payable towards 'loss of future income'. Since the injured was 27 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier that would made applicable is 17. Thus, the compensation payable towards 'loss of future income' would comes to Rs.1,42,800/- (Rs.7000x12x17x10/100=1,42,800), as against Rs.61,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. On careful evaluation of the material on record, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,89,300/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty nine thousand three hundred only), as against Rs.2,07,700/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 16.11.2015, passed by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, in MVC. No.1118/2013, the compensation payable to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.2,07,700/- to 2,89,300/-. The enhanced compensation would comes to Rs.81,600/- (Rupees eighty one thousand six hundred only). The Respondent-Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks 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. The enhanced compensation would comes to Rs.81,600/- (Rupees eighty one thousand six hundred only). The Respondent-Corporation shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks 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, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to the costs, Office to draw the decree accordingly.