JUDGMENT : The claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement against the judgment and award passed on 09.02.2015 made in MVC.No.606/2013 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT No. V, at Vijayapur, awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,60,200/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit from respondents. 2. It is the case of the claimant that, on 13.12.2012 at about 03.30 p.m. the claimant- Chandrakanth was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KA-288-S-1774 by carrying pillion rider his wife Rajashree from Darga to Ittangihal road situated at Vijayapur Town. When he reached near Darga cross bye-pass road, at that time the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.MH-13-AC-6164 came from Solapur towards Athani road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and caused accident. As a result claimant fell down and sustained fracture of right leg, forehead and other injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Civil Hospital, Vijayapur for treatment. Again he was shifted to Dr. Katakol’s Health City Hospital for higher treatment as inpatient for 19 days and 10 days respectively. Thereafter, claimant has undergone operation for injuries. He has taken follow up treatment. He has spent amount towards medical expenses. It was further contended that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy aged about 50 years. He was doing Hair Cutting Saloon business and earning Rs.2,70,000/- per annum. The respondent No.1 and 2 owner and insurer of offending Car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence, he has filed claim petition claiming Rs.11,00,000/-. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the claim petition as prayed for. 3. The respondent No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the age, income and occupation of the claimant. It was further denied the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. It was further contended that compensation claimed is exorbitant. The entire story of accident mentioned in column No.22 of the claim petition was denied as false and incorrect. It was further contended that offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and policy was also in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, respondent No.1 sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. It was further contended that offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and policy was also in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, respondent No.1 sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also disputed the coverage of insurance policy of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. The liability is subject to subsistence of insurance contract between owner and respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 also denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Based on the aforesaid rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the petitioner prove that he has sustained bodily injuries in motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.12.2012 at about 03.30 p.m. near bye-pass road at Darga Cross, on Darga to Ittangihal road, within limits of Vijyapur Traffic Police Station, on account of rash and negligent driving of the Indica Vista Car bearing Reg.No.MH-13/AC-6164 by its driver, as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is quantum and from whom? 3. What order or award? 6. In order to establish the case of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Doctor was examined as PW.3 and got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to 27. The respondent No.2- Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence except production of Ex.R.1-Insurance Policy. 7. The Tribunal considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that claimant has sustained fractural injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.MH-13-AC-6164 and claimant is entitled for compensation. Accordingly, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,60,200/- with interest 8% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit from respondents. Hence, claimant has filed present appeal for further enhancement. 8. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri. Hence, claimant has filed present appeal for further enhancement. 8. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri. Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contended that because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.MH-13-AC-6164, the claimant has sustained two fractural injuries and other grievous injuries all over the body as per Ex.P.3 Discharge Summary issued by the Health City Hospital Vijayapur. The same is evident from Ex.P.26 and 27 the Disability certificate and x-ray film respectively. The said material documents, is not considered by the Tribunal. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month ignoring the material documents produced at Ex.P.7 to 9 issued by the Income Tax Officer Vijayapur which clearly indicates that claimant has paid income at Rs.1,56,050/-. The monthly income would be at Rs.13,000/-. The Tribunal has proceeded to take into consideration the monthly income at Rs.5,000/- only which is unreasonable and inadequate. He would further contend that Doctor examined as PW.3 stated on oath that, claimant has sustained 40% disability to the right limb. The Tribunal has taken only 12% disability, which is on lower side. He also contended that the disability certificate at Ex.P.26 clearly depicts the same. He would further contend that award passed in respect of the other heads is also on lower side and it requires for further enhancement. Therefore, he sought for enhancement of compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Per contra Sri. S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to justify the impugned judgment and award. He further contended that Ex.P.7 to 9 issued by the authority only for the year 2011 and 2012. The same cannot be considered. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the said documents by holding that they are not helpful for the income of the injured. He further contended that the Doctor examined as PW.3 who stated that, the claimant has sustained 40% to the right limb and Tribunal has justified in taking 12% disability. He also contended that the compensation awarded in respect of other heads is just and reasonable. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of petition. 12. He further contended that the Doctor examined as PW.3 who stated that, the claimant has sustained 40% to the right limb and Tribunal has justified in taking 12% disability. He also contended that the compensation awarded in respect of other heads is just and reasonable. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of petition. 12. Having heard to the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that, the claimant has sustained following injuries; (1) Cut lacerated wound sutured supra orbital, (2) Cut lacerated wound over left parietal region, (3) Abrasion over left supra scapular region, (4) Tracumatic subarchnold bleed, (5) Acute subdural bleed, (6) Right temporal hemorrhage contusion, (7) Fracture of right fibula, (8) Fracture of right tibia, (9) Left facial palsy and (10) Traumatic right third nerve palsy. The accident occurred on account rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.MH-13-AC-6164. The same is evident from the evidence of PW.1 and material documents Ex.P.1 to 6. The adverse finding recorded by the Tribunal against the driver of Tata Indica Car bearing Reg.No.MH-13-AC-6164 is not challenged either by the driver or insurance company. 13. The claimant specifically stated on oath that he was doing Hair Cutting Saloon business and used to earn Rs.2,70,000/- per annum. In support of his contention he has produced Ex.P.7 to 9 acknowledgements issued by the Income Tax Officer Vijayapur to show the assessment. The Tribunal has ignored the Ex.P.7 to 9 on the ground that claimant has not produced any documentary evidence and material proof to show about existence of Vijaylaxmi Hair Dressing at Vijayapur. Ex.P.7 to 9 are not helpful for income of the injured. The Tribunal has proceeded to take the income of the injured at Rs.5,000/- per month is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The original records received from the Tribunal. The Ex.P.7 to 9 produced by the claimant clearly depicts that, Income Tax Department issued the acknowledgement as per Ex.P.7 for the year 2010-11 showing the gross total income is Rs.1,75,000/- deduction is Rs.27,954/- and Total income is at Rs.1,56,050/- which was issued on 18.02.2011. As per Ex.P.8 for the year 2011-12 gross total income is at Rs.1,56,612/-, there is no any deduction and Total income is at Rs.1,56,610/- which was issued on 16.09.2011. As per Ex.P.8 for the year 2011-12 gross total income is at Rs.1,56,612/-, there is no any deduction and Total income is at Rs.1,56,610/- which was issued on 16.09.2011. As per Ex.P.9 for the year 2012-13 gross total income is at Rs.2,24,202/-, deduction is Rs.66,848/- and Total income is at Rs.1,57,350/- which was issued on 30.07.2012. The said income tax returns produced by the claimant, not disputed by the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. In the absence of any contra material documents on record, the Tribunal out not have ignored the said material documents issued by the Income Tax Officer during the course of his official capacity and a presumption has to drawn under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal has erred in rejecting the documents on the ground that he has not produced any documentary evidence and material proof to show about the existence of Vijaylaxmi Hair Dressing at Vijayapur. The income tax returns produced by the claimant, not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The income tax acknowledgments produced by the claimant, are relevant material documents to determine the just compensation. 14. The PW.1 clearly stated on oath that he has sustained grievous injuries. The Doctor-PW.3 stated that claimant has sustained 40% disability to the right limb. The Tribunal has taken only 12% disability. The Tribunal ought to have taken the same at 15%, which is just and reasonable. The Tribunal awarded compensation in respect of other heads is also on lower side and it required further enhancement in view of facts and circumstances of the present case. The contention of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company that claimant has not produced the proof with regard to income, cannot be accepted. 15. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability. 16. Taking into consideration the entire material on record the claimant was entitled to future income considering the income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 9 X 15/100 the total amount of Rs.1,62,000/- towards loss of future income. 17. After re-assessing the entire oral evidence of PW.1 and Doctor-PW.3, material documents Ex.P.1 to 27, in the absence of any contra material produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company and in the presence of Ex.R.1 Insurance Policy which was in force as on the date of accident, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the claimant is entitled to just compensation as under:- Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Towards pain and suffering (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.0,60,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.1,60,400/- 3. Towards loss of earning during laid up period (10,000x3) Rs.0,30,000/- 4. Towards loss of future earning income (10,000x12x9x15/100) Rs.1,62,000/- 5. Towards loss of amenities Rs.0,25,000/- 6. Towards attendant, diet, conveyance and other charges Rs.0,25,000/- Total Rs.4,62,400/- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,60,200/- Total Rs.1,02,200/- Thus the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,62,400/- as against Rs.3,60,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the claimant/appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 09.02.2015 made in MVC.No.606/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT No. V, at Vijayapur, is modified holding that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.04,62,400/- as against Rs.03,60,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,02,200/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. 19. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,02,200/- with 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization shall be release in favour of the claimant.