JUDGMENT : K. SOMASHEKAR, J. 1. Though these appeals are listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsels on both sides, the same are taken up for final disposal. 2. In MFA No.7129/2013, the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.199/2011 dated 11.06.2013 has been challenged by the Insurance company by urging various grounds, where the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,01,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. 3. Mfa No. 5867/2013, the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.199/2011 dated 11.06.2013 has been challenged by the appellant/ claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. The factual matrix of the appeals is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that claimants in M.V.C.No.199/2013 were proceeding to Sanduru from Chitradurga by hiring a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-14/A-2575, when the car came near Kalledevarapura at around 7.45 a.m., the offending lorry bearing Registration No.HR-56/C-5711 being driven by its driver in a greater speed came from opposite direction and hit the car. As a result of that, the claimants in claim petition made by them sustained severe injuries to their right shoulder, back, chest and other parts of the body. The claimant namely Khadar said to be the injured aged about 20 years at the relevant point of time and he incurred huge amount for his treatment and lorry which caused injuries was covered with insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 and the same was in force on the date of the accident. Therefore, the first respondent said to be the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being insurer are jointly and severally were liable to pay the compensation. 5. In pursuance of summons issued in the claim petition, the second respondent, being the insurer appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections in detail to the respective claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. 5. In pursuance of summons issued in the claim petition, the second respondent, being the insurer appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections in detail to the respective claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and on evaluation of the evidence of P.W.1 Khadar in MVC No.199/2011 and evidence of P.W.3, being the doctor who provided treatment to him, document Ex.P.4-wound certificate said to be issued by the doctor and also other documents got marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.22 respectively, wherein the claim petitions were clubbed and rendered clubbing judgments to these appeals preferred by appellant/insurance company in MFA No.7129/2013 and in MFA No.5867/2013 preferred by the claimant/injured also been challenged by urging various grounds. 7. Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.7129/2013 has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1- Khadar and so also the relevant documents produced by him which were got marked in order to establish his case as against the respondents. Despite service of notice, owner of the offending vehicle did not appear through out the proceedings. Even power of attorney holder has not produced the driving licence of the lorry driver before the appellant-insurance company or before the Tribunal and they were given legal notices to produce the same, but they did appear before the Tribunal. The power of attorney holder by virtue of the said power of attorney had procured release of the vehicle from the Police Station. The Tribunal has erroneously came to a conclusion that the appellant-insurance company has not produced any relevant documents to substantiate their case that the driver did not possess the driving licence and fastened liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company. He also relies upon the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Yashodhara B. Shetty vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd., and Others, (2007) ILR(Kar) 4567, wherein it is held that the appellant/insurance company has done everything at their part, though there was no control to prove and substantiate non-possession of Driving Licence. The Tribunal should have noticed that the insurer has to indemnify the liability in view of the ratio relied upon. The Tribunal should have noticed that the insurer has to indemnify the liability in view of the ratio relied upon. These are all the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and seeks interference with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.199/2011 dated 11.06.2013. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.5867/2013 has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1 Khadar said to be the injured who met with an accident and also sustained grievous injuries. The same has been indicated in the averments made in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal for seeking compensation. Learned counsel for the claimant further contends that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and also evidence on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel that at the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 20 years and was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month by working as Hamali. But the Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the claimant in a sum of Rs.4,500/- which is lower in side. There is illustration and guidelines relating to the notional income which has to be taken where there is no proof of income. The accident was taken place in the year 2010, therefore, it requires consideration and the income has to be taken in a sum of Rs.5,500/- p.m. instead of Rs.4,500/-p.m., held by the Tribunal. He further contends that Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of P.W.1 which is supported by the evidence of P.W.3 doctor who has given treatment and also assessed the disability of the claimant at 42%. The claimant was inpatient at Chitradurga Ortho Care Centre from 04.07.2010 to 10.07.2010 and taken the treatment as per Exs. P.6, P.7 to P.11, P.17 to P.19 and P.22. Further, he contends that the compensation awarded under other heads is on lower side and same needs to be enhanced. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the claimant prays to allow the appeal filed by him seeking enhancement of compensation by interfering with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. 9. Further, he contends that the compensation awarded under other heads is on lower side and same needs to be enhanced. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the claimant prays to allow the appeal filed by him seeking enhancement of compensation by interfering with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. 9. Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in MFA No.5867/2013 addressed his argument similar to the argument made in the connected MFA No.7129/2013 by contending that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective relating to driver of the offending vehicle as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy issued by insurance company. Therefore, it is required to be interfered with impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and seeks dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant said to be the injured in MVC No.199/2011 even to the extent for seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal raising the income in a sum of Rs.5,500/- p.m., as the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. 10. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellant respectively relating to the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.199/2011, it is necessary to state that there is no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant- Khader who sustained accidental injuries which is indicated in wound certificate and also by the evidence of P.W.3 being the doctor who treated him and is supported by the documents produced as per Ex.P.6, P.7 and P.11 and so also Exs. P.17 to P.19 and P.22. P.W.3-doctor has issued the disability certificate at Ex.P.7 and assessed disability at 42% relating to claimant/Khader who was aged about 20 years at the relevant point of time when he met with an accident and sustained injuries. There is illustration and guidelines relating to the notional income which is taken when there is no proof of income. For the year of accident 2010, it requires consideration and the income is taken in a sum of Rs.5,500/- p.m. instead of Rs.4,500/-p.m. held by the Tribunal by adding Rs.1,000/- Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, 18 multiplier is taken based upon Sarla Verma's case. But the Tribunal has held the multiplier as 16 which need to be modified. For the year of accident 2010, it requires consideration and the income is taken in a sum of Rs.5,500/- p.m. instead of Rs.4,500/-p.m. held by the Tribunal by adding Rs.1,000/- Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, 18 multiplier is taken based upon Sarla Verma's case. But the Tribunal has held the multiplier as 16 which need to be modified. The compensation towards loss of future income due to disability works out as under: Rs.5,500 x 12 x 18 x 14% = Rs. 1,66,320/- as against Rs. 1,21,000/- 11. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant must have undergone follow up treatment and rest due to accidental injuries for at least 3 months, a sum of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500/- x 3 months) is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period as against Rs.13,500/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In so far as loss of amenities is concerned, the Tribunal has not considered the same, hence a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the same. 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 enhanced by this Court Total enhanced amount Injury pain and sufferings 30,000 30,000 - Attendant charges 5,000 5,000 - Nutrition and future medical care 10,000 10,000 - Medical expenses incurred 22,000 22,000 - Loss of earning during laid-up period 13,500 16,500 3,000 Loss of earning capacity due to disability 1,21,000 1,66,320 45,320 Loss of amenities 25,000 25,000 Total 2,01,500 2,74,820 73,320 Rounded of to 75,000 14. However, the compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. 15. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal preferred by the appellant in MFA No.7129/2013 is hereby dismissed as there are no substances to call for any interference with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC.No.199/2011. Appeal preferred in MFA No.5867/2013 by the claimant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No199/2011 is hereby modified. Appeal preferred in MFA No.5867/2013 by the claimant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.06.2013 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No199/2011 is hereby modified. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.73,320/- rounded off to Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. The amount in deposit, if any, in MFA No.7129/2013 shall be transmitted to the concerned MACT in MVC No.199/2011 forthwith. The respondent No.2-insurance company in MFA No.5867/2013 shall deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with accrued interest at 6% p.a. before the Tribunal within a period of 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. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to the rate of interest, shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to the costs. Office to draw the decree accordingly.