JUDGMENT : The claimant/injured is before this Court in appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 14.07.2010 in MVC No.5947/2009 on the file of the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall and MACT, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. The claimant/injured filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 15.07.2009, when the claimant was waiting for the bus on Bangalore-Kolar road, N.H.4, the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03/EZ2611 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant, due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that due to the accidental injuries, the claimant is not able to sit, stand, walk and squat on the floor and she is not in a position to earn as she was earning prior to the accident. 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their independent objections. The second respondent /insurance company in their objections contended that the claimant has not suffered injuries in the alleged accident. The claimant in collusion with the owner of the offending vehicle has filed false complaint. Further it is stated that the claim made by the claimant is exorbitant and excessive. 4. The injured/claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2 in support of her case and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. The Insurer examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. 5. The Tribunal, on examination of material on record, both oral and documentary awarded total compensation of Rs.42,180/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking only 3% disability to the whole body as against the evidence of Doctor at 30%. The Tribunal also committed an error in taking Rs.3,000/- p.m. as income of the claimant/injured. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed an error in taking only 3% disability to the whole body as against the evidence of Doctor at 30%. The Tribunal also committed an error in taking Rs.3,000/- p.m. as income of the claimant/injured. He submits that as the accident is of the year 2009, minimum of Rs.5,000/- ought to have been taken as income of the claimant/injured. It is also his submission that the compensation awarded on different heads are also on the lower side which needs to be enhanced. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ insurance company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation based on the material on record, which needs no interference. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation? 10. The accident which had taken place on 15.07.2009 involving the claimant and motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03/EZ-2611 and the injuries suffered by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant has suffered the following two injuries as per the wound certificate-Ex.P4: (i) Fracture of symphysis bone and pubic rami left; and (ii) Bleeding abrasions over the upper and lower limb 11. P.W.2-Doctor in his examination in chief stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 27.6% to right side and 34.8% to the left side and 31.2% to the whole body. However, P.W.2-Doctor is not the treated doctor who deposed before the Tribunal and he deposed based on the medical records. Admittedly, the claimant has suffered fracture of symphysis pubic bone and pubic rami left. The doctor based on the medical records was of the opinion that the claimant has suffered 31.2% disability to the whole body. Taking note of the evidence of P.W.2, the medical records and nature of injuries suffered, I deem it appropriate to assess the disability of the claimant to an extent of 10% as against 31.2% as opined by the doctor. The accident is of the year 2009. The Tribunal committed an error in taking only Rs.3,000/- p.m. as income of the claimant who is stated to be a coolie. The accident is of the year 2009. The Tribunal committed an error in taking only Rs.3,000/- p.m. as income of the claimant who is stated to be a coolie. Taking note of the year of accident, it is noticed that the coolie would have earned not less than Rs.200/- per day. This Court and Lok Adalaths while settling the accident claims of the year 2009 would normally take Rs.5,000/- p.m. as notional income for determination of the compensation in the absence of any material to indicate the exact income of the claimant/injured. Hence, I deem it appropriate to take Rs.5,000/- p.m. as notional income of the claimant for determination of compensation. 12. Looking into the nature of injuries, the treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient from 15.07.2009 to 18.07.2009, I am of the view that the claimant would be entitled for modified compensation under the head loss of future income at Rs.66,000/- (5000 x 12 x 11 x 10/100). The claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation on the following heads : Injury/Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000.00/- Medical/Hospital charges Rs.7,100.00/- Loss of earning during the period of Treatment for two months Rs.10,000.00/- Food, Nourishment and conveyance Attendant Charges Rs.5,000.00/- Loss of amenities Rs.25,000.00/- Loss of future earnings Rs. 66,000.00/- Total Rs.1,43,100.00/- Thus, in all the claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.1,43,100/- as against Rs.42,180/awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 14.07.2010 in MVC No.5947/2009 on the file of the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall and MACT, Bangalore is modified and the claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,43,100/- as against Rs.42,180/-awarded by the Tribunal, thereby the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,920/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.