JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - This appeal is preferred by the NEKRTC-respondent No.2 questioning the judgment and award dated 30.06.2009, passed by the XI MACT, Bellary in MVC No.454/2008. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: The claimant contended in the claim petition that, on 21.12.2007 at about 8.30p.m. in front of Kumaraswamy temple, near Fire Station, Bellary he was proceeding on the road, at that time the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-34/F-615 drove it in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, resulting in a accident, whereby the claimant suffered grievous injuries. It is further contended that he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary for immediate treatment and he took follow up treatment with private doctors for long time. 3. It is further contended that after the accident his life became miserable. He has incurred huge medical expenses. 4. On issuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal and filed their written statement denying the petition averments made in the claim petition. Further, it is contended that the accident is not on account of the driver of the offending bus, but on account of negligence on the part of the claimant himself and they also denied the earning capacity and income of the claimant and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In order to substantiate the claim petition averments, the claimant got examined himself as PW1 and also got examined the doctor as PW2, who treated the injured. As many as 12 documents produced by the claimant which were marked before the tribunal vide Ex.P1 to 12. On behalf of respondent, no documents placed on record. 6. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal granted in all a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- as the compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-NEKRTC vehemently contended that the tribunal erroneously took into consideration the disability aspect of the injured in the absence of cogent evidence placed on record. 8. It is his argument that doctor who examined as PW2, who issued Ex.P10 disability certificate, was of the clear opinion that the disability to the extent of 25% and tribunal has taken the entire disability at 25%. 9. 8. It is his argument that doctor who examined as PW2, who issued Ex.P10 disability certificate, was of the clear opinion that the disability to the extent of 25% and tribunal has taken the entire disability at 25%. 9. It is his argument that wherever disability assessed by the doctor, who has not treated the injured, practice of the court is to assess at 1/3rd of the disability factor and as such, awarding of the compensation by taking into disability at 25% is wrong and sought for reduction. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant Sri. Hanumareddy T. contended that tribunal has seen the injured before the court and injured who is claimant before the court and also has taken into consideration the oral evidence placed in the form of PW2, who assessed Ex.P10, has rightly assessed disability of the injured. 11. Further, it is contended that tribunal also did not choose to grant compensation on the head of loss of amenities and under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. Further, contended that the tribunal granted only Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses and on the head of pain and suffering the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side and sought for enhancement of the same. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the NEKRTC- appellant makes out a case for reduction of the compensation under the head of pain and suffering by applying disability at 10% instead of 25%? 2. Whether the claimant makes out a case for awarding additional compensation on the head of pain and suffering and awarding compensation on the head of loss of amenities and loss of income during the laid up period ? 13. Answer to the above points are in the affirmative for the following : REASON 14. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi vehemently contended that it is the regular and usual practice that wherever disability certificate is issued, it has to be assessed at 1/3rd of disability found in disability certificate. 13. Answer to the above points are in the affirmative for the following : REASON 14. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi vehemently contended that it is the regular and usual practice that wherever disability certificate is issued, it has to be assessed at 1/3rd of disability found in disability certificate. But, in the present case, the tribunal did not chose to apply 1/3rd of the disability found in the disability certificate at Ex.P10, but, has taken the entire disability as shown in Ex.P10, which is against the settled principle of law. 15. He further contended that tribunal did not taken into consideration the evidence of PW1 and 2 in his right perspective and those held in law awarding compensation of total compensation of Rs.2,22,000/-. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal was justified in taking computation of income by taking 25% disability as shown in Ex.P10. 17. Pw2 Dr.Dinesh Gudi in his evidence has stated that he has seen the X-ray No.2961/09 dated 3.2.2009, T.L. Spice AT & Lat shows old malunited compression fracture T12 vertebra and non union of transverse process right of L3 vertebra. According to him, it has resulted as permanent disability to the extent of 25%. 18. In the cross-examination of PW2 it is elicited that immediately after the accident, he did not treat the injured. PW2 further admits that he has examined the injured only for the purpose of assessing the disability. 19. Whenever the evidence of the treating doctor is not available, it is not safe to consider the disability factor as is found in disability certificate while assessing the disability. 20. This court under such circumstances consistently has taken 1/3rd of the disability as is found in the disability certificate. As such, this court finds that the same yardstick is to be applied in the present case. 21. However, taking into the fact that there are two disabilities noted by the doctor, it is appropriate to take disability at 10% as against 25% as taken by the tribunal. If 10% disability is taken into account, the following will be the compensation payable to the claimant under the head of Loss of earning capacity: Rs.4,500X12X10%X16=86,400/- 22. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled for an amount of Rs.86,400/- towards loss of earning capacity. 23. If 10% disability is taken into account, the following will be the compensation payable to the claimant under the head of Loss of earning capacity: Rs.4,500X12X10%X16=86,400/- 22. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled for an amount of Rs.86,400/- towards loss of earning capacity. 23. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. 24. This court finds the sufficient force in the arguments advanced on behalf of claimant that the awarding of compensation only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and only Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses and non granting the compensation on the head of loss of amenities and loss of income during laid up period, is incorrect. Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on the head of loss of amenities and for laid up period. 25. Having regard to the nature of injuries, even though before the tribunal claimant has not produced any cogent evidence, towards medical expenses, this court in the considered opinion awarding only Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses is on the lower side. This court, deems it appropriate to award Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses. 26. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for modified enhanced compensation under different heads as follows: 1 Loss of earning capacity 86,400/- 2 Pain and sufferings 40,000/- 3 Loss of amenities 40,000/- 4 Loss of income during laid up period 15,000/- 5 Medical expenses 4,000/- Total 1,85,400/- 27. In view of the same, the points are answered accordingly. Hence, I pass the following : ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,85,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.2,22,000/- awarded by the tribunal in MVC No.454/2008. Office is directed to pass the modified award. The amount in deposit Rs.50,000/- is already withdrawn by the claimant and is entitled to withdraw the balance amount with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.