JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Belagavi and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.06.2015 passed in MVC No. 2726/2013 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belagavi have filed these appeals. 2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 26.07.2013 at about 8-45 a.m. the petitioner was returning from his agricultural land along with his father to his home. When he reached near village outer limits of Lagameshwar, Gokak Taluka, rider of Hero Honda Splendor bearing No. KA-49/J-8647 drove the same in very high speed, rashly and negligently and dashed to the petitioner. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries. He took treatment at Vijaya Hospital by spending a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He was earning a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. by doing agriculture. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle. 3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal and respondent No. 1 filed the written statement, denied the petition averments. Respondent No. 1 specifically contended that he is not responsible for the accident. His motorcycle was insured with respondent No. 2. Hence, in case of liability, it may be saddled against Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed detailed written statement, denied all the petition averments. Further, contended that the bike of the respondent No. 1 was never involved in the accident. In fact, the petitioner had fallen from a two wheeler and sustained injuries. A false case was filed against respondent No. 1 before the police to claim compensation from respondent No. 2. Therefore, respondent No. 2 prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of his claim petition, the claimant has got examined as PW-1 and 3 other witnesses as PWs. 2 to 4 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14. Per contra, the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company got examined its witness as RW-1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.4. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,77,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Per contra, the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company got examined its witness as RW-1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R.1 to R.4. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,77,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent No. 2 being the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 5. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed MFA No. 103283/2015 on the grounds that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case and insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 6. The claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed MFA. Crob. No. 100196/2015 on the ground that the Tribunal has considered income of the petitioner on lower side and disability is also considered on lower side and needs to enhance. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 8. A Short question which arise for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant owner has made out grounds to set aside the liability saddled against him and whether the claimant has made out ground for enchantment of compensation? 9. The learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-49/J-8647 was not at all involved in the accident and the same has been implicated in order to claim compensation and that the case of the claimant is fall from motor bike as stated before the doctor, which is contrary in the pleading that the motor cycle dashed against him and therefore, the learned counsel submitted that liability saddled against the insurer is liable to be set aside. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that respondent No. 1 has admitted the accident in his written statement and he has pleaded guilty before the criminal court admitting the accident, and that the insurer has not challenged the criminal case. Therefore, only on the statement recorded by the doctor that the petitioner sustained injures due to fall from the motor bike cannot be a ground to contend that the vehicle has been falsely implicated. Therefore, only on the statement recorded by the doctor that the petitioner sustained injures due to fall from the motor bike cannot be a ground to contend that the vehicle has been falsely implicated. Further, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of earnings during the laid up period and further no compensation is awarded towards loss amenities and unhappiness in future life and further that the tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner at Rs. 6,000/- per month which is on lower side. 11. The main contention of the insurer is that the history given by the petitioner before the doctor as per Ex.R.4 is fall from two wheeler bike and therefore, it is not a case of dashing the bike against the pedestrian petitioner and therefore, there is false implication of the vehicle. This contention of the insurer cannot be accepted. Respondent No. 1 had filed objections on the claim petition wherein he has admitted in para no. 10 that the accident in question occurred on 26.07.2013 at about 8:45 hours and while the petitioner was returning to this house by walk, his vehicle hit him. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 1 the rider of the motor cycle against whom the charge sheet was filed by the concerned police, accused has pleaded guilty before the criminal court, thereby he has admitted the accident as alleged by the claimant. Further in order to explain history recorded by the Doctor in Ex.R.4 the wife of the claimant Smt. Gorawwa is examined as PW-2, she has stated that at the time of admitting her husband in Vijay Ortho and Trauma Centre, Belagavi she has correctly stated that he met with motor accident and sustained injuries, but due to clerical mistake they have entered in the hospital record as fall from the two wheeler. In her cross examination she has denied that she has deposing falsely. Further, PW3. Basangouda patil is examined as eye witness to the accident. He has also deposed that the motorcycle hit the petitioner while he was returning to his house by walk on the left side of the road. The respondent No. 2 has got examined his official witness as RW-1. Further, PW3. Basangouda patil is examined as eye witness to the accident. He has also deposed that the motorcycle hit the petitioner while he was returning to his house by walk on the left side of the road. The respondent No. 2 has got examined his official witness as RW-1. Suhas K. Kulkarni in his cross examination he has admitted that they have got conducted investigation though their investigator and he has submitted a report. He has further admitted that in the said report it is mentioned that the accident in question has taken place due to negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle KA-49/J 8647 and he has no impediment to produce the said report. Admittedly, the said report is not produced. The admission given by RW-1 that in the investigation report, it is mentioned that the accident in question has taken place due to negligent driving of the motorcycle is sufficient to hold that the accident in question occurred for the said reason and the petitioner sustained injuries. The respondent No. 2 cannot be permitted to contend only on the basis of Ex.R.4 that the petitioner sustained injures due to fall from the bike. Under these circumstances, the contention of the insurer that the vehicle of respondent No. 1 has been falsely implicated and that there is a fraud and impersonation and creation of documents cannot be accepted. 12. The learned counsel for the insurer has relied on decision in the case of Manju S/o Mahadevappa vs. Muthue K.P. and Another in MFA No. 2829/2009, decided by this Court on 03.01.2011. In that case the story narrated by the claimant was falsified by the insurance company by examining the doctor of Mangala Nursing Home wherein the claimant was treated. Therefore, in that case, the creation of medical reports and the documents by the claimant was proved by examination of the doctor. Under such circumstances, this court held that the claimant had fabricated in collusion with police. The insurer in the present case has not produced such evidence In the present case, on the other hand RW-1 himself has admitted that as per their investigation report, the accident in question occurred due to negligent driving of the motorcycle belonging to respondent No. 1 and the petitioner sustained injures in the said accident. The insurer in the present case has not produced such evidence In the present case, on the other hand RW-1 himself has admitted that as per their investigation report, the accident in question occurred due to negligent driving of the motorcycle belonging to respondent No. 1 and the petitioner sustained injures in the said accident. Under these circumstances, this court holds that the insurer has not made out any grounds for setting aside liability saddled against him. 13. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted for enhancement of the compensation on the grounds that income of the petitioner considered by the tribunal is on the lower side and that the disability of the petitioner considered by the tribunal is also on the lower side, further that the tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of amenities and loss of earnings during the laid up period. 14. The petitioner has contended that he was earning Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. from agriculture. However, he has not produced any document to prove his income including records of rights of the lands. Therefore, the tribunal considering the age of the claimant and that the accident occurred in the year 2013 assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is just and proper. The tribunal on the basis of the evidence of PW-4 Dr. S.R. Angadi has considered permanent disability of the petitioner at 10% of the whole body which is 1/3rd of the disability of the particular limb. There is no reason to interfere in this regard. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- toward pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 15,000/- towards future medical expenses. However, the tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of earning during the laid up period at least for a period of 2 months and further, no compensation is awarded towards loss of amenities. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under these heads. Therefore, on re-assessment of the material on record, the claimant is entitled for the following just compensation, towards pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- towards food transport and attendant charges Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses Rs. 24,200/- towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability of 10% of the whole body Rs. 93,600/- as awarded by the tribunal, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- is awarded for loss of earnings during the laid up period (Rs. 30,000/- towards food transport and attendant charges Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses Rs. 24,200/- towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability of 10% of the whole body Rs. 93,600/- as awarded by the tribunal, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- is awarded for loss of earnings during the laid up period (Rs. 6,000/- x 2 = 12,000/-) further a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and unhappiness and Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. Thus the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,14,800/- as against the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 1,77,800/-. Under these circumstances, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER MFA No. 103283/2015 is dismissed and MFA Crob. No. 100196/2015 is allowed in part. The appellant claimant is awarded compensation of Rs. 2,14,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The amount of compensation deposited in MFA No. 103283/15 by the insurer shall be transmitted to the concern tribunal forthwith. Order as to deposit and disbursement passed by the tribunal holds good. Send the records to the concerned tribunal.