JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 08.05.2014 passed in MVC No.571/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal have filed these appeals. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 02.01.2012 at about 2.30. p.m., the petitioner was proceeding towards Naganur from Bailhongal on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-24/L-9786 as a pillion rider, which was driven by respondent No.1. When the said motorcycle was proceeding on Bailhongal-Belgaum road, the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and without observing humps on the road, moved the motorcycle in the same speed and made to fall the petitioner from the motorcycle. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on back, left hand wrist, fracture of spine, abrasion over root of thumb of left side, abrasion over left index finger, fracture and dislocation of D6, D7 and other injuries to all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to District hospital, Belgaum, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he was shifted to KLES hospital, Belgaum, wherein he was admitted as inpatient and has undergone conservative treatment and CT scan was done and he was discharged on 03.01.2012. After discharge from the said hospital, he was admitted in Lake View Hospital, Belgaum as inpatient for 20 days and took medical treatment for the said injuries. During the said period, the petitioner undergone major operation to spine and inserted steel rectangular plate. So far, the petitioner has spent Rs. 2,50,000/- towards medical expenses, hospital bills, medical bills and conveyance etc. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was doing mason work and centering work, thereby earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2-who is the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed objections denying all the averments made in the petition. He has admitted that he was riding the motorcycle carefully and cautiously and it was not the fault on his part. 15,00,000/-. 3. In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 has appeared through his counsel and filed objections denying all the averments made in the petition. He has admitted that he was riding the motorcycle carefully and cautiously and it was not the fault on his part. The petitioner lost control, jumped up and fell down from the motorcycle and he has denied that the accident was due to his rash and negligent driving. In case of any liability, it may be fastened on respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the motorcycle and at that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle. 4. Respondent No.2 has appeared through its advocate and filed objections denying all the averments made in the petition. He denied the manner of accident. He further contended that on 02.01.2012, there was no accident by the user of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-24/L-9786 and that the petitioner has sustained injuries in some other accident and was admitted in District Hospital, Beglaum and even in KLE hospital, Belgaum and then in Lake View Hospital, Belgaum. The petitioner colluding with the owner of the motorcycle and Bailhongal police, filed false complaint and subsequently termed it as R.T.A. colluding with Medical Officials in the said hospital. He has denied that the petitioner was aged about 20 years and was earning about Rs. 10,000/- p.m. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. 6. In support of his claim, the claimant was examined as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to P15. The respondents have not produced any oral or documentary evidence. 7. The learned member of the Tribunal after hearing both the parties passed impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs. 20,10,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Respondent No.2-the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The Insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award has filed MFA No.102130/2014 on the grounds that there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. Respondent No.2-the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 8. The Insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award has filed MFA No.102130/2014 on the grounds that there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The motor vehicle inspection report shows that no damage was caused to the motorcycle and therefore the petitioner has failed to prove the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a higher side by considering the disability of the claimant at 100% of whole body is erroneous. 9. The petitioner/claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed MFA No.102246/2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation. He has contended that the Tribunal has considered his income at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. which is on a lower side. He was working as mason and earning more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the entire records. 11. A short question which arise for consideration before this Court is, as to whether the insurer has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and as to whether the claimant has made out grounds for enhancement of the compensation. 12. The learned counsel for the insurer vehemently submitted that though the alleged accident occurred on 02.01.2012, the complaint was lodged on 04.01.2012 by the father of the petitioner/claimant and as per the M.V.I. report, no damage was found on the vehicle. Therefore, it is false implication made by the owner of the vehicle and therefore the claim petition ought to have been dismissed against the insurer. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that if the petitioner fell down from the vehicle and dragged for some distance he should have sustained some more injuries. 14. The learned counsel also submitted that the claimant is not entitled for compensation towards future prospects as granted by the Tribunal and that the petitioner is also not suffering from disability of 100% of the whole body. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the delay in filing his complaint is explained. The insurance company has not challenged the charge sheet filed against respondent No.1. 16. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the delay in filing his complaint is explained. The insurance company has not challenged the charge sheet filed against respondent No.1. 16. Neither respondent No.1-owner nor respondent No.2-insurance company have challenged the charge sheet filed against respondent No.1, on the other hand, respondent No.1 has admitted the accident in his written statement. 17. The learned counsel further submitted that the claimant is entitled for future prospects and that the income of the claimant is considered only at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. which needs to be enhanced. 18. The main contention of the insurer is that there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint and that there are no damage caused to the motorcycle and therefore the accident as stated by the claimant is not proved. It is true that the accident in question occurred on 02.01.2012 and the complaint was lodged on 04.01.2012 by the father of the claimant. The claimant has stated the reasons for the delay in filing the complaint. Admittedly the claimant sustained various severe injuries in the motorcycle accident. He was admitted in the hospital. The insurer has also contended that the petitioner in collision with respondent No.1 and the concerned police officials have lodged false complaint in collusion with the hospital authorities. The insurer having taken such serious objections and having contended so, has not adduced evidence in support of his contention. So far as the delay is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly held that the delay is not fatal as held in the case of Ravi vs. Badari Narayan and others, (2011) ACJ 911. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held as follows: "It is well settled that delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first to rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the F.I.R. with the police. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. thus, cannot be the ground to deny justify to the victim. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the F.I.R. with the police. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. thus, cannot be the ground to deny justify to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the F.I.R. should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the F.I.R. in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of F.I.R. certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of F.I.R. is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of F.I.R. Unless kitch and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the F.I.R. assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." 19. Therefore the Tribunal relying on the above referred decision has properly come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the contention raised by respondent-insurer. Further respondent-insurer has also failed to prove any of the contentions taken before the Tribunal by adducing cogent evidence. In this regard, the learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the decision in the case of The National Insurance Company Limited, Belagavi V. Shri. Adiveppa Appanna Naik and Others, (2018) 3 KCCR 2141 . In the said case, this Court has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) AIR SC 315. In the said case, this Court has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) AIR SC 315. Therefore, the contention of the impleadment of the vehicle in the present case and collusion between claimant, respondent No.1 and police officials cannot be accepted. 20. This Court has made similar observations in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lakshmamma and others in MFA No.20699/2010 decided on 20.08.2015. Therefore, considering the evidence in the present case by applying the above stated principle, it becomes crystal clear that the insurer having taken specific defence has failed to establish the same by adducing cogent and necessary evidence and therefore it is held that the insurer has failed to make out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him. 21. The claimant has sought for enhancement of the compensation by considering his income more than Rs. 5,000/- p.m. The accident occurred on 02.01.2012 and it is contended by the claimant that prior to the accident, he was aged about 20 years and doing mason and centering work and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The claimant has not produced any positive evidence in order to prove the income. Therefore, the Tribunal on notional basis considered the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. The contention of the claimant is that he was working as mason and also doing centering work and the income considered by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As per the guidelines provided for settlement of cases before the Lok Adalat in the year 2012, the income of the petitioner ought to have been taken at Rs. 6,500/- p.m. Therefore the claimant is entitled for compensation considering his income at Rs. 6,500/-p.m. 22. It was contended by the insurer that the claimant is not entitled for future prospects. On this point, the learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prakash Mallappa Jambagi and other in MFA No.100357/2015 connected with MFA No.100378/2015 decided on 03.10.2018. The Division Bench of this Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish v. Mohan and others, (2018) ACJ 1011 in which it is held as follows: "10. Ltd. v. Prakash Mallappa Jambagi and other in MFA No.100357/2015 connected with MFA No.100378/2015 decided on 03.10.2018. The Division Bench of this Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish v. Mohan and others, (2018) ACJ 1011 in which it is held as follows: "10. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.2,400/- towards loss of future prospects. 11. In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing, at least in the facts of this case, can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant is unable to even eat or to attend to a visit to the toilet without the assistance of an attendant. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In this background, it would be a denial of justice to compute the disability at 90 per cent. The disability is indeed total. Having regard to the age of the appellant, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18. In the circumstances, the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the loss of income, including future prospects, would be Rs.18,14,400/-. In addition to this amount, the appellant should be granted an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses (Rs.98,908/-); for extra nourishment (Rs.25,000/-) and for attendant's expenses (Rs.1,00,000) is maintained. The Tribunal has declined to award any amount towards future treatment. The appellant should be allowed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 for future medical expenses. The appellant is thus awarded a total sum of Rs.25,38,308/- by way of compensation. The appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The liability to pay compensation has been fastened by the Tribunal and by the High Court on the insurer, owner and driver jointly and severally which is affirmed. The amount shall be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of 6 weeks from today and shall be paid over to the appellant upon proper identification. 23. Even in cases of personal injuries, the claimant is entitled for compensation towards loss of future prospects. Therefore, the Tribunal awarding 50% of the income of the claimant towards future prospects is proper. However, now this Court has held that income of the claimant is to be considered at Rs. 6,500/- p.m. The compensation towards loss of future earning capacity has to be enhanced accordingly by awarding 50% of the income towards future prospects. 24. Considering the income of the claimant at Rs. 6,500/- p.m. and addition of 50% of the said income towards future prospects which comes to Rs. 3,250/-, the monthly income of claimant comes to Rs. 9,750/-. The same has to be multiplied by 12 and 18. Thus compensation towards future prospects income comes to Rs. 21,06,000/- (9750x12x18). 25. The insurer has also disputed that the claimant is suffering from 100% of physical disability. The claimant has got examined PW2-Dr.B.F.Patil, who has issued the disability certificate at Ex.P12. PW2 has treated the claimant during the relevant period. The same has to be multiplied by 12 and 18. Thus compensation towards future prospects income comes to Rs. 21,06,000/- (9750x12x18). 25. The insurer has also disputed that the claimant is suffering from 100% of physical disability. The claimant has got examined PW2-Dr.B.F.Patil, who has issued the disability certificate at Ex.P12. PW2 has treated the claimant during the relevant period. He was working in Lake View Hospital as Orthopedic Surgeon and traumotologist. He has deposed that the claimant/petitioner was brought to the said hospital on 25.08.2012 for the purpose of assessing his permanent physical disability. The claimant also produced records as to the treatment at KLE hospital and also in Lake View hospital and that of R.T.A. On examining the claimant, he found that he had sustained injuries as stated in the wound certificate and other records along with LL paraplegia with O grade power, sensation absent with involvement of bladder bowl, Fracture of D6 and 7 vertebra, Fracture of D-5 vertebra extradural compression of spinal cord with edema. He further deposed that, at present the patient complains, pain backache, inability to stand walk, inability to work, need attendee to help daily activities and incontinence of urine and bowel. He as has also deposed that he is unable to sit, stand, walk, bedridden and need an attender to help in routine work. Considering all the physical disability, PW2 has issued the disability certificate stating that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 100% of the whole body. We have to consider the avocation of the petitioner as mason or doing centering work. In view of the same, the petitioner has proved that he is suffering from permanent physical disability which also amounts to functional disability of 100% of the whole body. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation towards loss of future income at 100%. It is assessed at Rs. 21,06,000/-. 26. The Tribunal has awarded loss of income during laid-up period at Rs.30,000/-, considering income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/-p.m. for a period of six months. The income of the claimant now considered is Rs.6500/- p.m., hence entitled for loss of income during laid-up period at Rs.39,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads does not call for interference. Thus, on reassessment of the compensation, the petitioner is entitled to the following just compensation. 1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- 2. The income of the claimant now considered is Rs.6500/- p.m., hence entitled for loss of income during laid-up period at Rs.39,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads does not call for interference. Thus, on reassessment of the compensation, the petitioner is entitled to the following just compensation. 1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- 2. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. Medical expenses incurred Rs. 60,000/- Incidental expenses Rs. 50,000/- 4. Loss of income during laid up and rest period Rs. 39,000/- 5. Loss of future income Rs. 21,06,000/- 6. Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 25,05,000/- 27. Thus the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 25,05,000/-, as against Rs. 20,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thereby the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,95,000/-. 28. Under these circumstances, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. The appeal filed by the insurer is liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant has to be partly allowed. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No.102130/2014 is hereby dismissed. MFA No.102246/2014 is partly allowed. The petitioner/claimant is awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,95,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Amount of compensation deposited by the insurer/appellant in MFA 102130/2014 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. The order as to deposit and disbursement as passed by the tribunal holds good.