JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant against the judgment and award dated 11.04.2012 rendered by the Prl. MACT and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore at Bangalore in MVC No.7797/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that on 21.9.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. the appellant/claimant was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-X-2912 towards Kallahalli from Venkatarayanadoddi near Bisalappa Temple, Kanakapura road. At that time an Autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KA-42-4757 came from Kanakapura towards Venkatarayanadoddi in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle wherein the claimant was proceeding. As a result, he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained severe injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Kanakapura and for better treatment referred to KIMS Hospital, Bangalore. He has spent huge amount towards medical treatment. He was working as a road roller driver and was earning Rs.500/- per day prior to accident. Due to the accident injuries, he lost his earnings during the period of treatment and he has also suffered disability. On all these grounds, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation. 4. In pursuance to service of notice, first respondent remained absent and was placed exparte. Second respondent being the insurer filed written statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. In order to prove his case, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor on his behalf as PW.2 and also got examined his employer as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.1,58,237/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.1,58,237/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and incorrect and the same is rendered without properly appreciating the facts and evidence on record. Further, the gravity of the injuries have not been properly assessed, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries to right leg and underwent surgeries and despite effective treatment could not be able to recover. In this regard, the Tribunal denied the compensation for loss of amenities. Further, the income assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side and the same needs to be considered, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and avocation of the appellant. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses. Further, the Tribunal has committed an error on fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle without appreciation of the materials and evidence on record. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the appeal and seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - insurance company denies the accident in question and manner in which the alleged accident said to have occurred. He contends that the driver of the offending autorickshaw was not having valid driving licence and permit as on the date of accident and thereby the owner of the offending autorickshaw has violated the policy conditions. It is further contended that the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the context of contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also learned counsel for the respondent stated supra, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute about the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that he sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Auto rickshaw. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that he sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Auto rickshaw. Ex.P1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P3 is the IMV report, Ex.P4 is the charge sheet, Ex.P5 and P6 are the wound certificates, Ex.P7 is the discharge summary, Ex.P10 is the MLC report, Ex.P11 is the MRI scan report, Ex.P14 is the medical bills and Ex.P18 is the X-ray. On evaluation of all these documents, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending auto rickshaw and as a result of the accident, the appellant sustained injuries. 9. The appellant/PW.1 has stated that he was working as road roller driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, though he has examined his employer as PW.3, no supporting documents have been produced in proof of salary. Therefore, the Tribunal, in the absence of concrete and acceptable evidence regarding the avocation and income of the appellant has taken his monthly as Rs.4,500/-. But having regard to the fact that the accident is of the year 2010 and as per the guidelines and illustrations of the Lok Adalath chart, the notional income to be taken for the accident year of 2010 is Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of income during laid period up would be Rs.15,000/- as against Rs.13,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. In order to prove the disability factor, the injured claimant has examined Dr.S.H.Shivaprakash, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon from Sri Krishna Nursing Home as PW.2. The Doctor after going through the wound certificate and on examination of injured, found that he had difficulties in walks with limp, locking knee present, instability present, wasting of right thigh and leg present and difficulties in movement of right knee are painful and limited. He opined that the injured has suffered 15% permanent disability of the whole body. But he is not the treated Doctor. On evaluation of this medical evidence, it could be seen that though PW.2 is not the treated Doctor, having regard to the gravity of the injuries and the nature of treatment taken by the injured claimant, it is just and proper to hold 15% permanent disability to the whole body. But he is not the treated Doctor. On evaluation of this medical evidence, it could be seen that though PW.2 is not the treated Doctor, having regard to the gravity of the injuries and the nature of treatment taken by the injured claimant, it is just and proper to hold 15% permanent disability to the whole body. Accordingly, the compensation under the head loss of future earnings on account of disability would be Rs.1,17,000/-(Rs.5,000 x 12 x 13 x 15%) as against Rs.70,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by KIMS hospital wherein the injury is shown as fracture of tibial spine and tear of lateral collateral ligament. Both the injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Kanakapura wherein the injuries are shown as fracture of right tibial spike and tear of lateral collateral ligament. On evaluation of these documents and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, it is just and proper to award Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities, as no compensation has been awarded under this head. 12. Pw.2 - Dr.Shivaprakash has advised the claimant to go for ACL repair, PCL repair, collateral ligament and meniscial excession which according to PW.2 would cost about Rs.1.5 to 2 lakhs. But the Tribunal has failed to notice this evidence of the Doctor and erred in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenditure for the reason that the treated Doctor has not advised such. But keeping in view the gravity of injuries, nature of treatment taken and so also the evidence of PW.2, it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not call for interference. 13. But keeping in view the gravity of injuries, nature of treatment taken and so also the evidence of PW.2, it would be just and proper if a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are just and reasonable and the same does not call for interference. 13. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:- Particulars Compensation awarded by MACT Compensation by this Court Injury, Pain and suffering 50,000 50,000 Medical expenses 16,537 16,537 Attendant charges 6,000 6,000 Conveyance charges 2,000 2,000 Loss of earning during the period of treatment 13,500 13,500 Loss of earning on account of disability 70,200 1,17,000 Loss of amenities - 40,000 Future Medical expenses - 50,000 Total 1,58,237 2,96,537 Therefore, in all the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,96,537/- as against Rs.1,58,237/- and the enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,38,300/-. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Paul Singh vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and others, (2018) 7 SCC 558 wherein it is observed that "the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle." Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of reliance in Amrit Paul Singh case stated supra, the liability saddled on the owner of the offending vehicle has to be fastened on the respondent - Tata AIG General Ins. Co.Ltd. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,38,300/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. The liability saddled on the second respondent is set aside and entire liability is fastened on first respondent - TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. The impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.7797/2010 is modified accordingly. The liability saddled on the second respondent is set aside and entire liability is fastened on first respondent - TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. The impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.7797/2010 is modified accordingly. Respondent-TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the enhanced compensation with accrued interest, before the Tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. Office to draw the decree accordingly.