JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the MACT. Mysore (Court of Judge Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, in MVC No.1207/2012 dated 03.09.2015. 2. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of the leaned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.08.2012, at about 7.30 PM, petitioner Kumari B. Sneha was proceeding on her Scooty Pep bearing Registration No.KA-09-EG-7947 near Canara Bank, Vijayanagar 2nd Stage, Mysore, during that time, a Honda Activa scooter bearing Registration No. KA- 09-ES-9371 driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit to the Scooty Pep on which the petitioner was proceeding. As a result of the same, she fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately she was shifted to the Chandrakala Hospital and after first-aid, she was shifted to Vikram Jeev Hospital at Mysore and there she has been admitted as inpatient and operated. Thereafter she was shifted to Hosmat Hospital Bangalore for further treatment and there, she underwent surgery for her left foot and she was operated thrice, implants were inserted during the surgery. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that she completed her BBM graduation and she was working as a receptionist on part-time basis and earning Rs.5,500/- per month. She was also searching for a better job. Due to the accidental injuries she has suffered mentally, physically and also financially. For having suffered the injuries in the said accident, she filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation. 5. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.1 who being minor is represented by the natural guardian has appeared and filed objections by denying the contents of the claim petition that she was not riding the Honda Activa her father, one Srinivas was riding the scooter and claimant came rashly and negligently without giving any signal and dashed to the Honda Activa and as a result of the same, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the claimant herself and not on the part of the father of the first respondent. On these grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. On these grounds, she prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The respondent No.2 appeared and filed the written statement by denying the contents of the petition and it is further contended that as on the date of accident his brother, the father of the respondent No.1 has taken the vehicle from him. As per his knowledge, Srinivas was riding the vehicle and respondent No.1 was traveling as a pillion rider. Therefore, he has stated that respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation as the vehicle is insured with the insurer. Respondent No.3 also filed the objections by denying the contents of the claim petition and that the respondent No.1 is a minor and was not having any valid and effective driving license to drive the two wheeler and there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such he is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. On the basis of above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. “Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained injuries on account of the accident occurred on 26.08.2012 at about 7.30 PM, near Canara Bank, 2nd Stage, Vijayanagar, Mysore, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No. KA.09-ES-9371? 2. Whether the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 4. What order?” 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she got examined herself as PW1 and her father as PW2 and the doctor as PW3 and produced Exs. P1 to P22. On behalf of respondents, RW1 to RW6 were examined and got marked Exs. R1 to R10. After hearing the parties to the lis the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same, the claimant appellant is before this court. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant has also contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 50%. Assailing the same, the claimant appellant is before this court. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant has also contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 50%. Records would clearly indicate that when the claimant petitioner crossed the road to enter the 7th cross and in that light, the respondent No.1 being a minor without there being any driving license came rashly and negligently and has dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner and in that light, the Tribunal ought to have held that respondent No.1 was fully liable for causing the accident and the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% of the award amount in this behalf. She further contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the disability to the extent of 15% that too PW3-doctor who has examined the petitioner has assessed the disability to the extent of 81% to the left lower limb and 27% to the whole body. Then in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken disability to the extent of 27% fully and awarded the compensation. 9. She further contended that the compensation awarded under the head of marriage prospects, loss of amenities and the other heads also is on the lower side. Even she further contended that doctor PW3 who came to be examined before the court has deposed that petitioner is required an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards Corrective Osteotomy of the foot to walk normally. But the Tribunal has only awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses is on the lower side. It is also her contention that the claimant requires an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to 8,000/- per year for the purpose of purchasing micro-fiber slippers. The said aspect is not properly considered and appreciated and no adequate compensation has been awarded on this behalf. On these grounds she has prayed for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 – insurance company vehemently argued by contending that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the doctor who came to be examined as PW3 has assessed her disability to the extent of 82%. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 – insurance company vehemently argued by contending that the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the doctor who came to be examined as PW3 has assessed her disability to the extent of 82%. But under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, if the same is taken into consideration, it amounts to 50% that too if there is amputation of the leg. Then in such circumstances, the assessment itself clearly goes to show that the doctor has exaggeratedly given the disability only with an intention to claim further compensation. He also contended that compensation already awarded is on the higher side and the same may be confirmed and she prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Though the notice has been served respondent Nos. 1 and 2, they were not present; they have engaged the learned counsel and have not addressed any arguments in this behalf. 12. The accident in question is not in dispute. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that the respondent No.1 who was riding the two wheeler was not holding valid and effective driving license and only because of her fault the alleged accident has taken place and the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant has also contributed to the accident at 50%. 13. As could be seen from the documents produced, as per Ex. P4, copy of spot Sketch, it is clearly seen that the petitioner has come from West to East direction on a ring road and the respondent No.1 has come from East to West direction on the ring road and when the petitioner was taking a turn towards 7th cross of Vijanyanagar, at this spot, at the end of the divider the alleged incident has taken place. This fact is not in dispute. On going through the said sketch and evidence lead by the parties it clearly indicates that the visibility of the road is very clear and the place of accident is a straight road then under such circumstances, the claimant who is intending to take a right turn, should have taken some care and caution in this behalf and could have anticipated that some vehicle may come at the time of taking turn from the opposite direction and thereafter she could have taken the turn. But at the same time, respondent No.1 has come from opposite direction, therefore, she also contributed for the accident. The visibility is very clear and it is the contention of the petitioner that she has given an indication to take a right turn and thereafter she was taking the turn and the accident has taken place at the end of the divider. Then, in such circumstances, I am of the opinion that both i.e., petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 have contributed to the alleged accident. 14. But admittedly, the alleged accident is not hit on collision. The facts and circumstances of the case and also the spot sketch which has been produced at Ex.P4 clearly goes to show that already the petitioner/claimant had crossed more than 90% of the road to take a right turn and at the end of the divider, the alleged accident has taken place. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the respondent No.1 has come from the Eastern side she could have either stopped the vehicle or could have avoided the alleged accident. 15. In the light of the discussion held by me above, it can be held that the first respondent has contributed to the alleged accident to the extent of 80% and the petitioner/claimant has contributed at 20% and in this behalf, the finding given by the Tribunal by holding that Both the petitioner/claimant and respondent No.1 have contributed to the extent of 50% is hereby set aside. 16. It is the contention of the petitioner/claimant that the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award and Ex. P7, the Wound Certificate, which clearly goes to show that the petitioner/claimant has sustained following injuries:- 1. “Severe crushing of the left foot and ankle with k-wires in situ (done at Mysore) 2. Degloving and heel avulsion – left leg with pus discharge left ankle and foot 3. Shattered comminuted talus with total loss of bone and calcaneum-Left ankle; 4. Multiple metacarpal fractures of the left foot.” 17. The petitioner/claimant has produced the Disability Certificate as Ex.P11 and also got examined the doctor as PW3. In his evidence, he has deposed that the viability of the left foot and ankle was in doubt, therefore procedures were done to prevent below knee amputation. Multiple metacarpal fractures of the left foot.” 17. The petitioner/claimant has produced the Disability Certificate as Ex.P11 and also got examined the doctor as PW3. In his evidence, he has deposed that the viability of the left foot and ankle was in doubt, therefore procedures were done to prevent below knee amputation. On 30.08.2012, thorough wound debridement of the left ankle and foot and multiple k-wires and trans-articular pin was done. On 01.09.2012, ankle and hind foot fusion was done. On 03.09.2012, through wound debridement and split skin grafting of the left foot was done and she was discharged on 05.09.2012. He has further deposed that again she was admitted and removal of external fixator and below knee cast application has been done and assessed the disability of the petitioner/claimant to the extent of 81% to the left lower limb and the whole body disability to the extent of 27%. 18. It is the contention of the petitioner/claimant that she was a student at the time of accident and she was also working in Santhosh Electricals as part time receptionist and earning Rs.5,500/- per month. In order to substantiate the said fact, she also produced Ex.P10-appointment letter to prove her income. The Tribunal by taking income at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and by adding 50% towards future prospects and by taking the 15% of the disability has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,43,000/- towards “Loss of future income”. Though under the normal circumstances, the compensation awarded appears to be justifiable, the Tribunal has erred in adding 50% of the income towards future prospects. But, however, the income which has been shown by the petitioner as per Ex.P10 is Rs. 5,500/- per month and the doctor who came to be examined as PW3 has deposed that disability to the whole body is to the extent of 27%. There is nothing to discard and disbelieve the said evidence so which has been produced in this behalf. Even PW3 he has categorically stated what are all the surgeries and other preventive measures which have been so taken in this behalf. Therefore, if the income of the petitioner/claimant is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month, disability at 27% and after applying the multiplier of ‘18’ then the petitioner/claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,20,760/- (Rs.5,500x12x18x27/100) towards “Loss of future income’ as against Rs.2,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Therefore, if the income of the petitioner/claimant is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month, disability at 27% and after applying the multiplier of ‘18’ then the petitioner/claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,20,760/- (Rs.5,500x12x18x27/100) towards “Loss of future income’ as against Rs.2,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Further, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘Loss of amenities of life, happiness and frustration’ appears to be on the lower side. Even the records clearly indicate the fact that she was hospitalized more than 25 days and she has also undergone three operations that too at the age of 21 years and she has to suffer further. In view of the same, an amount of Rs.80,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities of life, happiness and frustration’ as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 20. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards marriage prospects. Admittedly, the claimant is aged 21 years and she has to search for a good bride then in that light, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side, in that light an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards the “marriage prospects”. 21. In view of the injuries sustained and the surgeries, the claimant has undergone, she would have been under rest for more than four months. Accordingly, Rs.21,000/- is awarded under the head ‘Loss of income during laid up period’ , wherein the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under this head. 22. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that for the purpose of future medical expenses, PW3-doctor has stated that Rs.1,20,000/- is required. But the same has not been substantiated by any material. In that light, it will be just and appropriate to award sum of Rs.75,000/- against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 23. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under ‘Conveyance, attendant charges and food and nourishment’ so also towards ‘loss of expectation of life’ at Rs.20,000/- each are just and appropriate and they do not call for any interference of this court. 24. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,36,760/- and the liability of the appellant/claimant has been fixed to the extent of 20%. After deducting 20%, the appellant/claimant is entitled for Rs.5,09,408/- (Rs.6,36,760/- Rs.1,27,352/-) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 25. 24. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,36,760/- and the liability of the appellant/claimant has been fixed to the extent of 20%. After deducting 20%, the appellant/claimant is entitled for Rs.5,09,408/- (Rs.6,36,760/- Rs.1,27,352/-) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 25. In so far as the liability prospective is concerned, the liability which has been fixed by the Tribunal on respondent No. 2 is confirmed. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the MACT. Mysore (Court of Judge Additional Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, in MVC No.1207/2012 dated 03.09.2015 is modified to the extent as indicated above. 27. The Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.