JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant assailing the judgment and award passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Malavalli, in MVC No.217/2015 dated 01.01.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondents though represented by a counsel, have remained absent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.5.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. when the petitioner Venkataswamy was proceeding to go to Government Hospital at Malavalli, at that time one Goods Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KA.11 A.3447 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner and as a result of the same he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Malavalli and then shifted to Government Hospital, Mandya and then shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was hale and healthy and was working as a Security Guard and was also doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. For having suffered injuries and having incurred the medical expenses, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation. 4. In pursuance of the notice, respondent No.1 appeared, but he has not filed any written statement. Respondent No.2 was placed exparte. After framing the issues, the Tribunal examined the petitioner as PW1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P28. Respondents have not led any evidence. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. For having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant claimant is before this Court. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the evidence of doctor and the wound certificate at Ex.P4 and Ex.C2 clearly indicates that the appellant has sustained fracture of anterior and medial walls of the left maxillary sinus with displacement, fracture of left orbital floor and medial orbital wall, fractures of Bilateral Nasal bone, loss of vision of left eye and doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 40%. Appellant was working as a Security Guard, as he has lost visibility to the extent of 40%, the Tribunal ought to have awarded loss of future income. Not accepting the said contention itself is illegal and the appellant-claimant is entitled to the compensation under the said head. Appellant was working as a Security Guard, as he has lost visibility to the extent of 40%, the Tribunal ought to have awarded loss of future income. Not accepting the said contention itself is illegal and the appellant-claimant is entitled to the compensation under the said head. He further contended that the records indicates that the appellant-claimant has been admitted in the hospital for 25 days from 8.05.2014 to 2.6.2014. No compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. On these grounds he prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. The accident in question is not in dispute so also the involvement of the offending vehicle insured with the respondent insurer. 7. As could be seen from the judgment and award and other records the appellant-claimant has sustained fracture of anterior and medical walls of the left maxillary sinus with displacement, fracture of left orbital floor and medial orbital wall, fractures of Bilateral Nasal bone and vision of left eye has been lost. In order to substantiate the said fact the appellant-claimant has got produced the wound certificate as per Ex.P4 and he has also produced wound certificate as per Ex.C2. Even though they have got examined Dr.Ramesh K.T. and Dr.Bharathi on commission, in their evidence they have deposed that appellant has been admitted on 8.5.2014 and got operated on 27.5.2014 and insert Titanium Mess and Screw and Plastic surgery was done and he has been discharged on 2.6.2014. They have also further deposed that when he came for examination he has no prope vision, face is ugly and in that light they have assessed the disabililty to the extent of 40% to the left eye, but they have not given any disability to the whole body. By going through the wound certificate at Ex.C2 and the evidence of PW2 it clearly indicates that there is adverse effect on the left eye that too when the appellant is working as a Security Guard, if he has not having any clear visibility of left eye, then definitely it affects the future loss of income. In that light, the trial Court was not justified in not awarding any compensation under the head loss of future income. 8. In that light, the trial Court was not justified in not awarding any compensation under the head loss of future income. 8. Even as could be seen from the judgment and award, it clearly indicates that the appellant claimant has been admitted for a period of 25 days from 8.5.2014 to 2.6.2014. In that light, during the laid up period he might have lost the income. In this behalf also the Tribunal has erred in not granting any compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. 9. Keeping in view the above discussions held by me the appellant-claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,14,200/- under the head of loss of future earnings and an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. 10. In so for as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the various heads to the tune of Rs.2,11,000/- appears to be just and proper and the same has not been disturbed. 11. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the appellant claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.4,50,200/-. Since already the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,11,000/-, after deducting the same, the appellant-claimant is entitled to a additional compensation of Rs.2,39,200/-with interest at 6% per annum. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.217/2015 is modified as indicated above. The respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional compensation awarded by this Court with uptodate interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Registry is directed to draw the award accordingly.