JUDGMENT : Delete the name of Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and XX Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru in MVC.No.4977/2013 dated 04.03.2015. 3. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is disposed of by this judgment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.06.2013, at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant/petitioner Mohan was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing registration No.CTO-7270 on Bannerghatta Road. When the said motor cycle reached near Nobo Junction, a BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-4855 came rashly and negligently and dashed against the motor cycle on which the appellant/petitioner was proceeding. As a result of the same, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Appollo Hospital and thereafter to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and from there he was referred to Nimhans Hospital and again was shifted to Victoria Hospital where he has been admitted and operated. It is the contention of the appellant that he was working as bus cleaner for school bus in Candle International School and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. For having suffered the injury, he filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. In pursuance of service of notice, the respondent appeared and filed its written statement by denying the contentions of the petitioner. It is further contended that the alleged accident has taken place due to the fault of the rider of the motor cycle who came and dashed against BMTC bus and as such, the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. It is also contended that the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle are necessary parties and they have not been made as parties to the proceedings and as such, the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary parties. On these grounds, he has prayed for dismissal of the said petition. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues : 1. Does the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries arising out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of BMTC bus bearing reg. No.KA-01-F-4855, on 19.06.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. as alleged? 2. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues : 1. Does the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries arising out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of BMTC bus bearing reg. No.KA-01-F-4855, on 19.06.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much? 3. What order or Award? 7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has got examined himself as PW.1 and has got examined Doctor as PW.2 and got marked 17 documents Exhibits P1 to P17. The respondent examined the driver of BMTC bus as RW.1 and got marked 2 documents as Exhibits R1 and R2. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant is before this Court. 8. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and the income which has been taken is also on the lower side. He further contended that there is amputation of right mid foot and the same has not been properly considered and appreciated while assessing the compensation by the Tribunal. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation vehemently argued by contending that the appellant himself has contended that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and after considering the same and the fact that appellant has suffered the amputation of right foot stump PTRA of right leg and the Doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 40%, in that light, the compensation awarded appears to be just and proper and there are no grounds to increase the compensation. 10. As could be seen from the judgment and award the claimant/appellant has suffered crush injury to his right foot and he underwent mid foot amputation on 22.06.2013 and thereafter, skin grafting was done on 23.07.2013. The Doctor who came to be examined as PW.2, in his evidence, has deposed that the claimant had multiple surgeries with loss of right fore foot and he assessed the disability to the extent of 40% permanent physical impairment as per the disability guidelines. The Doctor who came to be examined as PW.2, in his evidence, has deposed that the claimant had multiple surgeries with loss of right fore foot and he assessed the disability to the extent of 40% permanent physical impairment as per the disability guidelines. But what is the disability to the particular lower limb and to the whole body has not been stated. Under the said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal by taking 25% disability to the whole body, by taking the notional income of Rs.6,000/-, has awarded the compensation as mentioned below :- 1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs. 12,000/- 3. Food, nourishment, attendant & Transportation Rs. 20,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 33,000/- 5. Loss of income due to disability Rs.3,25,000/- 6. Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- 7. Loss of amenities in life Rs. 20,000/- 8. Towards disfigurement Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs.5,30,000/- 11. Though in the normal circumstances, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, the same is not just and proper. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the income which has been taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side, as could be seen from the records it is the contention of the appellant himself that he was working as a cleaner and was earning salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and has assessed the disability. In that light, whatever compensation which has been awarded appears to be just and proper. But, as could be seen from the records, it indicates that on 22.6.2013, he underwent mid foot amputation for crush injury of foot and thereafter, on 29.6.2013, flap coverage was done for amputation stump and on 9.7.2013, VAC therapy was done for stump after flap necrosis and debridement and on 23.7.2013, skin grafting was done for amputation of the stump raw area. That itself clearly goes to show that he was under the treatment for a longer period and during that particular period, he must have suffered pain and suffering and therefore, there will be some loss of amenities and it is also likely to affect his marriage prospects. In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded under the other heads requires to be reassessed. In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded under the other heads requires to be reassessed. In the light of the discussion, the re-assessed compensation is as mentioned below :- 1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 2. Food, nourishment, attendant & Transportation Rs. 10,000/- 3. Loss of amenities and discomforts in life Rs. 30,000/- 4. Towards disfigurement Rs. 30,000/- 5. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 1,70,000/- In all, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with 6% interest as ordered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award passed in MVC.No.4977/2013 dated 4.3.2015 is modified as indicated above. In so far as the medical expenses and the compensation awarded under the other heads is kept intact. The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation awarded by this court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While depositing, the Corporation has to deduct the interest for the delayed period of 382 days as ordered by the order dated 5.6.2017.