JUDGMENT : K. Natarajan, J. Though this appeal is listed to consider application I.A.No.1/2018 for return of lower Court records, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner/claimant not being satisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.10.2014 passed in MVC No.28/2013 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal' for the sake of brevity). 3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant as well as Insurance Company. 4. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. 5. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') before the Tribunal by claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. inter alia, contending that on 18.09.2012, at about 1.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on his two wheeler to Upparapalli village, he reached near Byappalli village. At that time, a vehicle bearing No.KA-02/V-2229 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries on his forehead, mouth, legs and other parts of the body. Then he was shifted to Gownipalli Hospital and later, to R.L.Jalappa Hospital and he was suffering from disability due to the accident. Respondent No.1 is the owner, Respondent No.2 is the previous owner and Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the said vehicle. The accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the vehicle bearing No.KA-02/V-2229 by its rider. Hence, he claimed compensation on various grounds/Heads. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though appeared through the counsel, but not filed any statement of objections. 7. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company appeared through the counsel and filed statement of objections contending that, the averments made in the claim petition are false. However, respondent No.3 admitted issuance of Insurance Policy and contended that liability, if any, shall be subjected to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It is also contended that the petitioner was the sole cause for the accident and is also guilty of contributory negligence. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, it prayed for dismissing the petition. 8. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. It is also contended that the petitioner was the sole cause for the accident and is also guilty of contributory negligence. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, it prayed for dismissing the petition. 8. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred on 18.09.2012 at about 1.30 p.m., near Byappalli village is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bajaj Kawasaki vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA.02-V-2229 and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident" 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation" If so to what extent & from whom? 3. What award or order?" 9. The petitioner in order to substantiate his contention examined himself as PW.1 and got marked eight documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondents did not let any evidence. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative, Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,26,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., which is as under: (a) Pain and Sufferings Rs.50,000 (b) Medical expenses Rs.1,00,000 (c) Incidental expenses Rs.20,000 (d) Loss of income during treatment period Rs.27,000 (e) Loss of amenities Rs.25,000 (f) Conveyance Rs.4,000 Total Rs.2,26,000 10. Assailing the meager award of compensation by the Tribunal, the claimant filed this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant contended that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries, in the accident. He has taken treatment for a long time in different hospitals. He was working as an agriculturist, doing business and was earning Rs.400/- per day. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is meager. The Tribunal has also awarded meager compensation in respect of pain and sufferings; incidental expenses; loss of income during laid up period and also loss of amenities and conveyance. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer contented that there is no documentary proof of evidence produced by the claimant before the Tribunal to prove his income. In the absence of proof of income, Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards incidental charges; Rs.27,000 towards loss of income during treatment period; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance. In the absence of proof of income, Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards incidental charges; Rs.27,000 towards loss of income during treatment period; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance. Therefore, he contended that there is no necessity for enhancing the compensation. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the appeal. 13. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, we have perused the judgment and award and other evidence on record. 14. The points that arise for our consideration are: (a) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-02-V-2229 was rash and negligent in driving due to which the accident dated 18.09.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. occurred, as a result of which the claimant suffered injuries and disability? (b) Whether the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation? (c) If so, what order or award? 15. The case of the claimant is that the accident occurred on 18.09.2012, at about 1.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on his two wheeler. When he reached Byappalli village, vehicle bearing No.KA-02/V-2229 driven by his driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and dashed against the petitioner, due to which, claimant sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to hospital and he took treatment. The claimant to substantiate his contention produced FIR, complaint, charge-sheet, spot mahazar before the Tribunal. The Police after registering the case and after the investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02/V-2229. The evidence of the claimant and these documents were not seriously disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal. Though the respondents initially contended that there was contributory negligence and the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, but they have not led any evidence before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Tribunal after considering the documents Ex.P1-FIR; Ex.P2-Complaint; Ex.P3-chargesheet; Ex.P4-Mahazar came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02/V-2229. The respondents have not filed any appeal against the findings on liability. On the other hand, the Tribunal after considering the documents Ex.P1-FIR; Ex.P2-Complaint; Ex.P3-chargesheet; Ex.P4-Mahazar came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02/V-2229. The respondents have not filed any appeal against the findings on liability. Therefore, the contention of contributory negligence as contended by the respondents is not acceptable and therefore, we confirm the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02/V-2229. 16. As regards the computation of compensation, the claimant has sustained injury to his spinal canal C3 to C5, which has led to Quadriparesis. He has lost his strength and cannot walk for a long distance. He has taken treatment in various hospitals such as R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Sri Lakshmi Multi Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru. After considering the injury sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In our opinion, the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is sufficient and the same does not require to be enhanced. As regards the claim on medical bills, the claimant sought Rs.2,26,000/- and also produced the medical bills but the Tribunal thought some amount has to be deducted for having refunded on return of medicines and has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- only. But on careful perusal of the medical bills even if some of the amounts were reduced the total medical expenditure to be awarded to the claimant cannot be Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, considering the remaining medical bills, we propose to award Rs.50,000/- in addition to Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses. 17. As regards the income of the petitioner, he has stated that he is an agriculturist, also doing business and earning Rs.400/- per month, but to prove the same, the petitioner has not produced any proof of income. Therefore, there is no other option for this Court to consider the notional income of the petitioner per month. The accident has occurred in the year September-2012. Even for the unskilled labour, we are considering Rs.7,000/- per month as income. Therefore, we propose to take Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the petitioner. 18. The Tribunal has taken a view that as there was no disability, there can be no loss of future income awarded to the claimant. The accident has occurred in the year September-2012. Even for the unskilled labour, we are considering Rs.7,000/- per month as income. Therefore, we propose to take Rs.7,000/- per month as notional income of the petitioner. 18. The Tribunal has taken a view that as there was no disability, there can be no loss of future income awarded to the claimant. We have also not found any evidence adduced before the Tribunal to show that there is physical disability in order to award compensation towards any future loss of income. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal for not awarding future loss of income does not call for any interference. 19. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period by taking Rs.4,500/- per month for six months. We have considered the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month. If the income of Rs.7,000/- per month is multiplied into six months, it comes to Rs.42,000/-. With regard to the loss of amenities due to the injury, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/-. We feel, it is meager and hence, we propose to enhance it to Rs.50,000/-. As regards conveyance charges, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,000/-; we find it is also meager. The petitioner was continuously under treatment in various hospitals in Kolar and Bengaluru. The claimant would have spent considerable amount in NIMHANS Hospital and for physiotherapy treatment. It is also seen from the record that he has undergone physiotherapy for long time. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.30,000/-, in addition to Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head of conveyance and physiotherapy charges. As regards the incidental charges, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/-, which is also meager. Looking to the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, we propose to award Rs.50,000/- towards incidental charges. Consequently, the re-assessed compensation is as under: Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees (Rs.) (i) Pain and suffering 50,000.00 (ii) Medical Expenses 1,50,000.00 (iii) Incidental charges 50,000.00 (iv) Loss of income during treatment period. (7,000 p.m. x 6 months) 42,000.00 (v) Loss of amenities 50,000.00 (vi) Conveyance & physiotherapy charges 34,000.00 Total 3,76,000 20. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. The petitioner is therefore entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 21. The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. The petitioner is therefore entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. 21. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by respondent No.3/Insurer within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Out of the enhanced compensation, including the interest thereon, 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be deposited in any Post Office or Nationalized Bank Deposit initially for a period of three years. The petitioner is entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance amount shall be released to the claimant/appellant after due verification. Parties to bear their respective costs. Office to return the lower Court records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2018 stands disposed.