JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Though these appeals have been listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents, these matters have been taken up for final disposal. 2. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and award dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.8387/2007 and M.V.C. No.8386/2007. 3. M.F.A. No.235/2012 relating to the case in M.V.C. No.8387/2007 and the connected M.F.A. No.232/2012 relating to the case in M.V.C. No.8386/2007, is filed challenging the impugned common judgment dated 27.06.2011 passed by the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT, Bangalore, in the aforesaid MVCs. 4. In M.V.C. No.8386/2007, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,58,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and in M.V.C. No.8387/2007, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,92,520/- with interest at 6% per annum, wherein, it reveals excluding future medical expenses which is Rs.5,77,520/-. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. These appeals are preferred seeking for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and also on the lower side. Sri. L.M.Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar L.P., being the husband of the deceased Mamatha and their daughter Kumari. P.Lalitha, aged about three years at the time of the accident, are the appellants, seeking compensation from the respondents. 6. Sri. L.M.Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar L.P., said to be injured, has filed claim petition in M.V.C. No.8387/2007 seeking compensation from the respondents. 7. The factual matrix of the appeals are as under: It is stated in the claim petition that, on 11.07.2007 at about 7.00 a.m., the injured Sri. L.M.Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar L.P., was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EK-288, along with his wife Smt. Mamatha. When they reached near Ramanjinappa's land, at that relevant point of time, the driver of 407 goods Tempo bearing No.KA-09-B-6777 which came from the opposite direction in rash negligent manner, dashed against the motor vehicle rode by Sri. L.M.Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar L.P. Due to the impact, both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, said Mamatha had been shifted to Srinivasa Nursing Home situated at Hosakote, in order to provide treatment to her. But, she succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 8. The injured Sri. L.M.Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar L.P. Due to the impact, both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, said Mamatha had been shifted to Srinivasa Nursing Home situated at Hosakote, in order to provide treatment to her. But, she succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. 8. The injured Sri. L.M.Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar L.P., was also shifted to the said Srinivasa Nursing Home at Hosakote in order to provide treatment to him. Subsequently, he took treatment as inpatient for one month and he incurred huge amount to take medical treatment. 9. In pursuance of notice on the respondents, the respondent No.1 appeared before the trial Court, but did not file written statement. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement initially denying the policy in respect of the aforesaid Tempo. But, later on filed the policy, which reveals that the policy was valid as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.2 contended that the accident has taken place due to contributory negligence of petitioner and also denied the injury sustained by the petitioner and also contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. 10. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the issues. In order to substantiate their claim, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 in M.V.C. No.8387/2007 and examined one more witness as PW2 being the Doctor and also got marked documents as per Exhibits-P1 to P17. One Bhimsen Y. Buddar, Deputy Manager, was examined as RW1 and got marked documents as per Exhibits-R1 and R2, in support of its contention taken in the written statement. 11. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment by awarding compensation of Rs.4,58,000/- with interest at 6% per annum in M.V.C. No.8386/2007 and a compensation of Rs.5,92,520/- with interest at 6% per annum in M.V.C. No.8387/2007, but excluding future medical expenses which is Rs.5,77,520/-. It is this common judgment which is challenged by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. It is this common judgment which is challenged by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. He contends that, the appellant No.1 who is said to be the injured and also being the husband of the deceased Mamatha and also the father of Kumari. P.Lalitha who is aged about three years at the time of the accident, who lost the compassion of her mother. 13. In M.V.C. No.8387/2007, the Tribunal did not consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant - PW1 and the Doctor - PW2. The Tribunal held that the appellant sustained 12% to the whole body instead of 20%, though he had deposed in his evidence that he had suffered permanent disability and he was not able to sit, squat, walk, climb, run and stand and he suffered loss of future earning capacity. To prove the disability, the appellant had adduced evidence of Orthopedic Surgeon - PW2 with regard to the injuries sustained by him and produced Ex-P15 to P17. Therefore, requires intervention in these appeals for consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, by enhancing the compensation to him and to his daughter Kumari. P.Lalitha, said to be a minor aged about 3 years when she lost her mother. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and agony, though the appellant had sustained grievous injuries, i.e., fracture of right clavicle, fracture of acromi on right, comminuted fracture proximal 1/3rd of humerus, comminuted fracture lateral epicondyle of humerus, comminuted fracture of proximal 1/3rd of ulna with raial, head dislocation, comminuted fracture right patella with fracture head of fibula, comminuted fracture lateral border of right scapula, laceration wound over left side of forehead, liver contusion, as deposed by the Doctor-PW2 in his evidence. Further, contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding meagerly under the heads of earnings, amenities, compensation towards attendant, conveyance charges, future medical expenses, etc. Thus, these aspects were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and prays for interference of this Court for enhancement of compensation under the said heads. 14. Further, contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding meagerly under the heads of earnings, amenities, compensation towards attendant, conveyance charges, future medical expenses, etc. Thus, these aspects were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and prays for interference of this Court for enhancement of compensation under the said heads. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that, in M.V.C. No.8386/2007, the Tribunal did not consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant - PW1 and erred in awarding the deceased Mamatha's earnings as Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.6,000/- per month. He contends that Kumari. P.Lalitha said to be the daughter of deceased Mamatha was aged about 3 years and she lost the comforts of her mother and she was brought up by the father - the appellant No.1 herein, who was also injured. Thus, these are all the evidence which is required to be reappreciated in these appeals and calls for intervention of the impugned award, where the compensation awarded is found to be inadequate, even though the ratio of the relevance rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI, (2017) AIR SC 5157, so also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. NANU RAM,2018 SCCOnline(SC) 1546. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for allowing the appeal by suitably enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Counter to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, contended that the Tribunal has suitably awarded the compensation under the heads of pain and sufferings, medical expenses, loss of earning, loss of future earning and future medical expenses to the injured in M.V.C. No.8387/2007. Further, the Tribunal has suitably awarded the compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, loss of consortium, love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate in M.V.C. No.8386/2007, keeping in view the oral and documentary evidence and therefore, does call for interference by this Hon'ble Court. By contending so, sought for dismissal of the appeals by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.8386/2007 and M.V.C. No.8387/2007. 16. By contending so, sought for dismissal of the appeals by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.8386/2007 and M.V.C. No.8387/2007. 16. In the backdrop of the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the parties, it is relevant to go through the evidence of PW-1 who has stated that on 11.07.2007 at about 7.00 a.m., he was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EK-288, along with his wife Smt. Mamatha and when they reached near Ramanjinappa's land, at that relevant point of time, the driver of 407 goods Tempo bearing No.KA-09-B-6777 which came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor vehicle rode by him and due to the impact, both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, his wife - Mamatha had been shifted to Srinivasa Nursing Home situated at Hosakote, in order to provide treatment to her, but, she succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. He was also admitted in the same hospital for treatment to his injuries. In support of his case, Exhibits-P1 to P17 were produced. PW1 is the petitioner in both M.V.C. Nos.8386/2007 and No.8387/2007. In order to establish his case, he has examined PW2 who is the medical officer who deposed with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in M.V.C. No.8387/2007. Exhibit-P1 is the FIR, Exhibit- P2 is the panchanama, Exhibit-P3 is the charge-sheet, Exhibit-P4 is the sketch, Exhibit-P5 is the IMV report, Exhibit-P6 is the inquest panchanama, Exhibit-P7 is the PM report in respect of deceased Mamatha, Exhibit- P8 is the wound certificate in respect of the petitioner and Exhibits-P10 to 12 are discharge summaries in M.V.C. No.8387/2007. These are the documentary evidence which are placed by the claimant. 17. In M.V.C. No.8386/2007, the Tribunal after evaluating all the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the income of deceased was Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, it requires to be enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/-. Hence, it is reworked as Rs.4,500/- per month and 1/3rd towards personal expenses should be deducted. In all, as against a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-, a sum of Rs.6,12,000 is required to be enhanced. Under the head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which is on the lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. In all, as against a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-, a sum of Rs.6,12,000 is required to be enhanced. Under the head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which is on the lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Under the head of loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded, which is also on the lower side and hence it is required to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-, as the age of the daughter was only three years as on the date of the accident, who lost the comforts of her mother. Under the heads of funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.10,000/- and under loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- is awarded. The said amount is very meager and accordingly, it requires to be enhanced to Rs.70,000/- under the said two heads. 18. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under: Compensation awarded under the heads By MACT By this Court Loss of dependency 4,08,000 6,12,000 Loss of consortium 20,000 50,000 Loss of love and affection 10,000 40,000 Funeral expenses & Loss of estate 10,000 & 10,000 70,000 TOTAL 4,58,000 7,72,000 Thus, in M.V.C. No.8386/2007, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.7,72,000/- as against Rs.4,58,000/- awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.3,14,000/- alongwith interest at 6% per annum. 19. In so far as M.V.C. No.8387/2007, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings, Rs.3,95,340/- under the head of medical expenses and Rs.13,500/- under the had of loss of earning during the laid up period, which need not be enhanced as the same is just and proper. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner and that the disability to be at 12% to the whole body, had held that the income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month, keeping in mind the multiplier ratio in the case of SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (2009) ACJ 1298 and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,680/- under the head of loss of future earning. The same is just and proper. Under the head of loss of amenities and future unhappiness, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded, which is very meager and is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The same is just and proper. Under the head of loss of amenities and future unhappiness, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded, which is very meager and is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Under the head of future medical expenses, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded, which is very meager, as PW2 in his evidence has deposed that the petitioner has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants. Hence, the same requires to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 20. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under: Compensation awarded under the heads By MACT By this Court Pain and sufferings 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 3,95,340 3,95,340 Loss of earning during the laid up period 13,500 13,500 Loss of future earning 1,03,680 1,03,680 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 15,000 50,000 Future medical expenses 15,000 50,000 TOTAL 5,92,520 6,62,520 Thus, in M.V.C. No.8387/2007, the claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,62,520/- as against Rs.5,92,520/- awarded by the tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest at 6% per annum. 21. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) The appeal in M.F.A. No.232/2012 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,14,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. (2) The appeal in M.F.A. No.235/2012 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.70,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. (3) The impugned common judgment and award dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C. No.8386/2007 and M.V.C. No.8387/2007, is modified accordingly. (4) The respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as the compensation enhanced by this Court, along with interest accrued, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, before the concerned MACT and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants, on proper identification. (5) The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal along with the lower court records, forthwith. (6) There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.