JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT at Hassan, in MVC No.847/2014 dated 7.10.2015. 2. Heard. Appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.1.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. petitioner Santhosh @ Santhoshkumar along with other petitioners were standing on the footpath by parking the bike bearing Registration No.KA-02 HC-4609, at that time the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.MH-04 H-4069 came from wrong side of the road rashly and negligently and dashed against the motor bike and as a result of the same the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to SSM Hospital, Hassan. After first aid treatment he was shifted to B.G.S. Global Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was doing agriculture and was also working as an electrician and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to do any work as before and as such he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming for compensation. 5. In pursuance of the notice respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed his objection by denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the petitioner himself has contributed to the said accident. He was riding the motorcycle rashly and negligently without there being any valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. He admitted the issuance of the insurance to the said lorry. He further submitted that his liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. He further contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing valid and effective driving licence and as such the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. He further submitted that his liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. He further contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing valid and effective driving licence and as such the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that took place on 01.01.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., near Kanadahalli, in front of Daba on B.M. Road, N.H.48, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.MH.04 H.4069? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, how much and from whom? (iii) What order? 7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and he also examined the doctors through Court Commissioner as PWs.3 and 4 and also examined one witness as PW.7. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same, the appellant-claimant is before this Court. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. He further contended that though the appellant-claimant was doing electrician work and was also doing agriculture and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month has awarded the compensation on the lower side. He further contended that PW3 the doctor has deposed that for the purpose of future surgery an amount of Rs.70,000/- is required, but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. He further contended that the said doctor has assessed the disability at 48% and 1/3rd of the same to the whole body, it comes to 16%, but the Tribunal has taken 10% disability and has awarded the compensation on the lower side. On these grounds, he prayed for enhancing the compensation. 9. He further contended that the said doctor has assessed the disability at 48% and 1/3rd of the same to the whole body, it comes to 16%, but the Tribunal has taken 10% disability and has awarded the compensation on the lower side. On these grounds, he prayed for enhancing the compensation. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-insurer vehemently argued by contending that the evidence which has been led by the appellant is not clear and on the basis of his evidence Tribunal by taking notional income at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month and after taking the disability at 10% has rightly awarded the compensation. He has further submitted that though it is the case of the appellant that an amount of Rs.200/- he used to get as Batta, the said Batta is going to be given when he goes out of the place to work only to meet the expenses and in that light the said Rs.200/- cannot be considered to be the income of the claimant. The Tribunal by taking those aspects has rightly awarded the compensation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The accident in question is not in dispute so also the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the respondent-insurer. 11. As could be seen from the judgment and award and the other record the appellant has sustained the following injuries: (i) Traumatic brain injury. (ii) Right parietal subdural haematoma Diffuse traumatic. (iii) Fracture of left hand radius bone. (iv) Defused Traumatic subarcanied Hemorrhage. (v) Pentarinting injury over testicles. (vi) Injury over liver. (vii) Tenderness wound over face. 12. He has also got examined the doctor Raju K.P., Orthopedic Surgeon, B.G.S. Global Hospital, Bengaluru, through Court Commissioner as PW3. He has specifically deposed that the appellant has sustained Traumatic brain injury, fracture of left hand radius, pentarinting injury over testicles, injury over liver and tenderness over face and he has been operated on 3.1.2014 and plate and screw was fixed on his left forearm and he was discharged on 13.01.2014. On the basis of the said fact the doctor PW3 has assessed the permanent disability at 48% to the particular limb and physical disability 16% to the whole body. It is the contention of the appellant that he was doing agriculture and also working as an electrician and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. On the basis of the said fact the doctor PW3 has assessed the permanent disability at 48% to the particular limb and physical disability 16% to the whole body. It is the contention of the appellant that he was doing agriculture and also working as an electrician and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He has produced Ex.P47 to show that he was working in Shwetha Electricals and getting an income of Rs.6,000/- per month. In support of his contention he has also got examined one Sri.K.P.Kumar as PW.7. He has stated in his evidence that since two years the appellant was working under him and doing electrical work and earning Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.200/- as Batta. Considering the said aspect, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month, by applying multiplier of ‘18’ and by taking the disability at 10% has awarded an amount of Rs.1,18,800/- towards the loss of future earnings. 13. Though the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be justifiable, while taking the notional income and the disability, Tribunal has committed an error. When PW3 Dr. Raju K.P. who came to be examined through Court Commissioner has specifically stated that the appellant has sustained a permanent physical disability to the extent of 16% to the whole body i.e. 1/3rd of 48%, then under such circumstances the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration 16% disability while awarding the loss of future earnings and even though the appellant has got examined PW7 and has also produced Ex.P47 to show that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and also Rs.200/- as Batta, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month and another Rs.1,000/- towards the other expenses. In that light, if the income is taken at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month and if the disability is taken at 16%, then under such circumstances the appellant-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,41,920/under the head of loss of future earnings. In that light, if the income is taken at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month and if the disability is taken at 16%, then under such circumstances the appellant-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,41,920/under the head of loss of future earnings. Even as could be seen from the judgment and award though the period of treatment which has been taken by the appellant is 12 days as an inpatient and he has also further attended the hospital for follow up treatment and he has been operated and it is also the evidence of PW3 that he is facing difficulty to attend to his normal activity as he was doing prior to the accident as an electrician and he cannot function as before, in that light the compensation awarded under the head of pain and sufferings and the amenities and discomfort also appears to be on the lower side. In that light, an amount of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded under the pain and sufferings and an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the head of amenities and discomforts and an amount of Rs.21,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. 14. As could be seen from the evidence of PW3, in his evidence he has deposed that appellant needs further surgery for removal of the implants and he needs Rs.70,000/-, the said amount appears to be on the higher side and in that light an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded for future medical expenses. 15. As could be seen from the judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of conveyance, nourishment, diet and attendant charges. The same has not been disturbed. So also the amount awarded under the head of medical expense is also not disturbed. 16. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the appellant-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.7,34,720/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.5,37,100/-, after deducting the same, the appellant-claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,97,620/- with 6% interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award passed in MVC No.847/2014 is modified as indicated above. Since the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.5,37,100/-, after deducting the same, the appellant-claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,97,620/- with 6% interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and award passed in MVC No.847/2014 is modified as indicated above. The respondent-insurer 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 copy of this order. The registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.