JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The insurer-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 2.2.2012, passed in MVC No.2731/2008, by the Fast Track Court-I & MACT, Belgaum, has filed this appeal and Cross Objection is filed by the claimant. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that, on 9.9.2008, the petitioner was going on two wheeler as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EA- 7879. His brother was riding the said vehicle. Near Kangrali BK, infront of Kalmeshwar Society at about 1.00p.m., the rider of the vehicle drove the same in a high speed and lost the control over the vehicle due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries and he was shifted to the hospital, where he has spent huge amount for treatment. He lost his income of Rs.6,000/- p.m., as he has become disabled and not in a position to work. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. In pursuance of the notices, respondent No.2 appeared before the tribunal and filed the written statement denying the petition averments and manner in which the accident occurred. He has also denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. He has denied that the petitioner has suffered 100% disability due to fracture of patella. He has further stated that the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim petition, claimants got examined himself as PW.1 and examined one witness and got marked in all 14 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14. Respondent No.2 has produced copy of the Insurance policy as Ex.R1. 5. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.2- the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. Respondent No.2 has produced copy of the Insurance policy as Ex.R1. 5. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.2- the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. The insurer being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award, has filed MFA No.21584/2012 on the grounds that the case was false and fabricated and the motorcycle in question had been fraudulently involved in the accident by the claimant in collusion with its owner, the accused-driver and police authorities, so as to make a wrongful gain by extracting money from the appellant. 7. It is further contended that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not considering the medical record and admission given by the claimant. 8. The claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award has filed MFA Crob.No.887/2012 seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded on all the heads are on lower side. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. A short question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to "whether the appellant insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimant has made out a ground for enhancement of the compensation?' 11. Learned counsel for the appellant insurer vehemently submitted that the petitioner at the first instance had given history before the Medical Officer that he sustained injures due to self fall as stated in Ex.P6-wound certificate. Therefore, it is a case of fabrication and commission of fraud, only in order to claim compensation from the insurer and there is collusion between the claimant-the rider of the motorcycle who is none other than his brother and the owner of the vehicle who is their neighbour. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aide. 12. Learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of North West Karnataka Rd. Transport Corp. Vs. Gourabai and others arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15079/2007 decided on 1/5/2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. The learned counsel for claimant submitted that claimant has admitted that he has stated before the doctor that he sustained injuries by self fall, that does not mean that he did not suffer the injuries in the motor vehicle accident. Transport Corp. Vs. Gourabai and others arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15079/2007 decided on 1/5/2009 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. The learned counsel for claimant submitted that claimant has admitted that he has stated before the doctor that he sustained injuries by self fall, that does not mean that he did not suffer the injuries in the motor vehicle accident. Learned counsel further submitted that the criminal case was registered against the rider of the motorcycle for having caused such accident and he was charge sheeted by the police. The documents produced before the Tribunal are the public documents which were relied on by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the claimant has proved the accident and that he sustained injures in the said accident. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/-p.m. and it ought to have been considered at least at Rs.4,500/-p.m. as per the guidelines provided for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalath. 14. The insurer has filed the written statement before the Tribunal wherein he has made an allegation of false claim being made before the Court. It is only pleaded that the petition is not maintainable and it is a false case. Apart from this, no other contention is taken stating that there is a collusion between the claimant rider of the motorcycle and the Police Authorities as is now contended in the appeal. In the course of the trial, the claimant was examined as PW-1 and in his cross examination, he has admitted that the Doctor has mentioned in Ex.P6 as stated by him. 15. On the other hand, the insurer has not examined any witnesses in support of his contention that the vehicle of respondent No.1 is falsely implicated. In fact, there is no such contention in the written statement and there was no issue on this aspect. Only on the basis of the contents of Ex.P6, that the petitioner has stated as fall himself cannot be a ground to hold that there was no accident and the petitioner did not suffer any injuries in the accident. In fact, there is no such contention in the written statement and there was no issue on this aspect. Only on the basis of the contents of Ex.P6, that the petitioner has stated as fall himself cannot be a ground to hold that there was no accident and the petitioner did not suffer any injuries in the accident. On the other hand, the documents produced by the claimant before the Tribunal including the charge sheet and order sheet in CC No.1608/2008 wherein the accused- the rider of the motorcycle has pleaded guilty goes to show that the accident in question occurred and the petitioner sustained injures in the said accident. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-insurer that it is a case of fraud or false cannot be accepted. In the said judgment stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the effect of the evidence of the Doctor and Ex.R1, in that case does not appear to have been looked into by the MACT and Trial Court. It appears, in that case also the claimant-insurer had made a statement before the doctor stating that he suffered a head injury due to fall from the height of 8ft. to 10ft. of his own house. Therefore, there was a specific statement made by the injured that he fell down from the height 8ft. to 10ft. of his own house. But, it is not so in the present case. Therefore, the said decision will not come to the aid of the appellant-insurer. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the appellant insurer has not made out any grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him. 17. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-p.m., which is on the lower side. On considering the age and occupation of the petitioner and also the year in which the accident occurred, namely, 2008 and in view of the guideless provided for settlement of cases in Lok Adalath, it is just and necessary to consider the income of the petitioner at Rs.4,250/- p.m. for the purpose of awarding compensation and on the consideration of evidence of PW-2, the Tribunal has considered the disability of the petitioner at 10% to the whole body. PW-2 has deposed that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 30% to the upper limb which has been considered 1/3rd. PW-2 has deposed that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 30% to the upper limb which has been considered 1/3rd. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same. 18. Under these circumstances, after reassessment of the entire material on record, just compensation is assessed as follows :- Pain and suffering 25,000.00 Medical Expenses 20,000.00 Conveyance, attendant charges 5,000.00 Loss of earning 12,750.00 Loss of amenities 10,000 Loss of future earning (4250X12X17X10%) 86,700.00 Total 1,94,450.00 19. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,94,450.00. 20. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.21584/2012 is hereby dismissed. MFA Crob.No.887/2012 is partly allowed. The claimant is awarded with compensation of Rs.1,94,450/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The order with regard to deposit and disbursement passed by the tribunal holds good. The compensation deposited in MFA No.21584/2012 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.