JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J. - Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, at Kundapura in M.V.C.No.103/2015. 2. We have heard argument of Sri. H.R.Nagaraj learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimant and Sri. L. Srikanta Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 insurer. Respondent No.1 insured is served and unrepresented. Learned advocates during the course of arguments have also made available copy of deposition and exhibits and same has been perused by us. A road traffic accident which occurred on 29.11.2014 at about 8.40 p.m. near Shastri Park, Kundapura, while petitioner was proceeding as a pedestrian and bus bearing registration No.KA-20-A- 7865 dashed against him which resulted in grievous injuries being sustained. The occurrence of accident in question, issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and same being in force or vogue as on the date of accident are not in dispute. Hence, these aspects are not delved upon in this appeal. 3. "Xxx xxx xxx" 4. "Xxx xxx xxx" 5. Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,75,825/- under the following heads: 1 Pain and Sufferings Rs. 80,000-00 2 Medical Expenses Rs. 84,225-00 3 Loss of earning during the laid up period Rs. 78,000-00 4 Food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 32,000-00 5 Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 5,61,600-00 6 Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000-00d Total Rs.8,75,825-00 6. It is the contention of Sri. H.R. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for appellant that Tribunal committed a serious error in awarding abysmally less compensation. He would submit that Tribunal ought to have taken income of the claimant @ Rs.12,000/- per month and disability @ 100% in the light of evidence available on record and as such, compensation towards 'loss of future income' as well as 'loss of income during laid up period' requires to be enhanced. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation under all heads. 7. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation under all heads. 7. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that there was negligence on the part of claimant and as such he had contributed to the accident though no evidence was available in that regard and as such, said finding is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Sri. L Srikanta Rao, learned counsel appearing for second respondent would submit that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under all heads is just and reasonable and there is no need or necessity for enhancement of compensation and he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, and on perusal of records, we are of the considered view that the following points would arise for consideration: i) Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? Or it requires to be enhanced? If so, to what extent? ii) What order? 10. As already observed herein above, occurrence of the accident on 29.11.2004 resulting in claimant sustaining grievous injuries as well as offending vehicle being insured with second respondent herein and being in vogue are not in serious dispute and as such these aspects are not delved upon. Tribunal while determining the compensation payable to claimant towards loss of future earning has construed the income at Rs.6,500/- per month and tribunal has relied upon the evidence of doctor -P.W.2 to arrive at a conclusion that claimant has sustained 40% whole body disability. Exhibit- P.10 is disability certificate issued to petitioner whereunder following disability has been recorded: 1. Walking with the help of support. 2. Deformity of the foot. 3. Absence of the half foot-4 and 5 toes about rays. 4. Volgas deformity of the left ankle with instability. 5. No movement of mid tarsal, fore foot joint. 11. Deposition of P.W.2-Doctor would indicate that he has assessed the claimant for physical disability and found there is 40% disability to right lower limb and whole body disability is 100% or in other words there is 100% loss of earning capacity. There is no serious dispute with regard to avocation of the claimant. He was working as a labourer/coolie staying in Kundapura from three years prior to the date of accident. He has also deposed that he was earning Rs.400/- per day or Rs16,000/- per month. There is no serious dispute with regard to avocation of the claimant. He was working as a labourer/coolie staying in Kundapura from three years prior to the date of accident. He has also deposed that he was earning Rs.400/- per day or Rs16,000/- per month. He has further deposed that he was taking care of all the expenses at his house. In his examination in - chief, he has deposed that, he is unable to put his right foot to the ground while walking or climbing stair-case and he is unable to stand continuously for reasonable time. Evidence of P.W.1 when read with the doctor's evidence viz., P.W.2, it would clearly indicate that whole body physical disability though may not be 100% as stated by doctor, it cannot be not less than 60%. Claimant would not be able to carry on coolie work like he was doing earlier and to the extent of 60% his income would get reduced. 12. After having perused photographs-Ex.P.6 (series), it would clearly indicate that claimant has sustained physical disability to right leg and it is a degloving injury. He has been operated upon and doctor - P.W.2 has stated to the following effect: "4. He was admitted on 29-11-2014 to 31- 12-2014 (32 days). That Petitioners Total Crushed Right foot bone was treated by Emergency wound debridement and Amputation of dorsum of Right foot and stabilization of other MTP Joints and other injuries are treated by wound cleaning, wound debridement, dressing, suturing and application of bandage." 13. There has been amputation of dorsum of right foot with 4th and 5th metatarsal. Doctor has opined there is deformity of right foot. While considering the award of compensation towards loss of future income, avocation of the claimant, injuries suffered by the claimant and its resultant impact on his avocation as well as his capacity to do or continue to discharge same work which he was doing earlier to the accident are all aspects which will have to be taken into consideration. While considering the award of compensation towards loss of future income, avocation of the claimant, injuries suffered by the claimant and its resultant impact on his avocation as well as his capacity to do or continue to discharge same work which he was doing earlier to the accident are all aspects which will have to be taken into consideration. Though Sri Nagaraj H.R. has made valiant attempt to buttress his argument to contend that claimant is unable to do coolie work and as such, 100% disability is to be taken for award of loss of future income, we are of the considered view that disability to the right foot being 40% as opined by P.W.2 and possibility of claimant carrying on any other avocation not being ruled out 60% disability being construed for assessment of compensation towards loss of future income would be safe and appropriate percentage of disability and accordingly, we adopt the same. 14. Insofar as income of the claimant is concerned, we notice that Tribunal has adopted Rs.6,500/- per month and same is marginally on the lower side. Taking into consideration, that Udupi Town is a third tire town, reasonable income of a coolie at Udupi would not be less than Rs.8,500/- per month and accordingly, we adopt the same for the purposes of computing loss of income. Thus compensation towards loss of future income would be as follows: Rs.8500 X 12 X 18 X 60= Rs.11,01,600/-. In substitution to the compensation of Rs.5,61,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, we award a sum of Rs.11,01,600/- and thereby claimant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,40,000/- is awarded towards loss of future income. 15. Insofar as compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'pain and suffering', 'medical expenses', 'loss of earning during laid up period' are just and reasonable and as such, we do not propose to interfere with the jus and reasonable compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Compensation towards food, nourishment, conveyance attendant charges being marginally on the lower side, we deem it proper to award an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head. Towards loss of amenities sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is marginally on the lower side. 16. Compensation towards food, nourishment, conveyance attendant charges being marginally on the lower side, we deem it proper to award an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this head. Towards loss of amenities sum of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is marginally on the lower side. Taking into consideration that claimant would not be able to sit, stand continuously for a long period, walk, run, squat and at the tender age of 22 years he has suffered these injuries with which, he has to live for long number of years, an additional compensation of Rs.35,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities. In the light of injuries above referred to having been sustained by claimant, we are of the view that body deformity is reduced his prospects of getting married or in other words chances of claimant getting married or having marital bliss is permanently ruled out. As such, we award an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. Thus, in all, claimant would be entitled to the following additional compensation: 1 Loss of income Rs. 5,40,000-00 2 Food, nourishment and conveyance Rs. 25,000-00 3 Loss of amenities Rs. 35,000-00 4 Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000-00 Total Rs 6,50,000-00 17. Sri. H.R. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant is correct in contending that Tribunal committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that there has been negligence on the part of claimant or his self negligence had also contributed for occurrence of the accident in question. Tribunal vide paragraph No.14 has recorded following finding to fix the negligence on the part of claimant to the extent of 20%. " The respondent No.2 has contended xxxx xxx xxx compound wall. In Exp.2 it is clearly mentioned that the accident has taken place 5ft. away from the compound wall in front of the Town hall of Shastri Circle. Exp.2 further demonstrates that the accident has taken place on the Tar road itself. The petitioner being the pedestrian is not expected to stand on the Tar road. No doubt the respondent No.2 has not examined the driver of the bus. But the admitted document clearly goes to show that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner also. The oral evidence of PW1 is supported by Police records. The petitioner being the pedestrian is not expected to stand on the Tar road. No doubt the respondent No.2 has not examined the driver of the bus. But the admitted document clearly goes to show that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner also. The oral evidence of PW1 is supported by Police records. As such the ratio of the negligence must be 80% so far as the driver of the bus and 20% so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, I answer the Issue No.1 and 2 in the partly affirmative." 18. As could be seen from Ex.P.2, claimant was standing near compound wall in front of Town hall, Shastri Circle, Kundapura. The offending vehicle which was proceeding from Thallur side towards Kundapura side has taken a right deep turn ('U' turn) and it was not expected of a prudent driver inasmuch as said driver ought to have taken a longer 'U' turn, then deep 'U' turn anticipating pedestrians would be crossing the road anticipating or anticipating in coming vehicle from Kundapura side. The accident in question has occurred solely on account negligence on the part of driver of the bus, and no amount of negligence can be attributed to the claimant. That apart, we find from evidence on record that claimant had been standing in front of Shastri Park waiting for an autorikshaw to return to his house ,which is in the normal course or a normal person would do. Hence, finding of the Tribunal that there has been 20% negligence on the part of the claimant or he had contributed his negligence for accident to occur cannot be accepted. Said finding is hereby set aside. For the reasons we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Kundapura in MVC No. 103/2015 dated 20.05.2016 is hereby modified and in addition to compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- is awarded which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment or deposit, whichever is earlier. Finding of the Tribunal fixing 20% negligence on the part of claimant is set aside. Finding of the Tribunal fixing 20% negligence on the part of claimant is set aside. (iii) The Compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as enhanced by this Court shall be deposited by the second respondent insurer before jurisdictional Tribunal expeditiously at any rate within the outer limit of eight weeks from today. (iv) Out of enhanced compensation, 50% with proportionate interest shall be paid to the claimant/appellant on proper identification by the jurisdictional Tribunal and balance amount with proportionate interest shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized bank or Scheduled bank of claimant's choice for a period of five years and claimant would be at liberty to draw periodical interest.