JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The injured claimant/appellant is before this Court in this appeal not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 19.03.2011 passed in M.V.C. No.522/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yelburga at Kushtagi (for short 'the Tribunal'), praying for enhancement of the compensation. 2. Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the same is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment. 3. The injured claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 09.11.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. when the claimant, who was working as a cleaner with respondent No.3 in lorry bearing registration No.KA-17/A-1482, was coming from Bagalkot side in the said lorry, the respondent No.3 drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-29 F-778, due to which the lorry fell down on the right side. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to right side clavicle, right of metatarsal, left middle finger and multiple abrasions all over his body. It is stated that he was inpatient for three days. Further he was working as a cleaner and was earning monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. It is stated that due to the injury suffered, the claimant was not in a position to do the work which he was doing prior to the accident. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 appeared and filed its written statement denying the entire claim petition averments. The insurance company also denied the occurrence of the accident. The insurance company also denied the vehicle having been insured with them. It further contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. 5. In support of his claim, claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. The respondent-insurance company examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.2. The Tribunal, based on the material on record, awarded total global compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 5. In support of his claim, claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. The respondent-insurance company examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.2. The Tribunal, based on the material on record, awarded total global compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The claimant, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is before this Court in this appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant physically and the learned counsel, Sri. G.N.Raichur for respondent No.1 through Video Conferencing. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, when compared to the injuries sustained by the claimant, is on the lower side. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding a global compensation of Rs.40,000/- without looking to the material on record i.e., Ex.P.5-wound certificate and Ex.P.17-disability certificate, wherein the doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered injuries to right side of clavicle, right side of metatarsal, left middle finger and multiple abrasion all over the body. He further contended that no compensation is awarded on the heads of 'pain and suffering and 'loss of amenities' to which the claimant would be entitled to. Thus, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel, Sri G.N.Raichur submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation which needs no interference. Further, he submits that the claimant has failed to prove Ex.P.17- disability certificate by not examining the doctor who had issued the disability certificate. Further, he submits that there is no proper evidence for enhancement of the compensation. Thus, he prays for dismissing the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which falls for consideration is, Whether the claimant would be entitled for enhancement of the compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. The answer to the above point would be partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident that had taken place on 09.11.2008 involving lorry bearing registration No.KA-17/A-1482, and KSRTC bus bearing registrationNo.KA-29 F-778, and the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. 10. The answer to the above point would be partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: The accident that had taken place on 09.11.2008 involving lorry bearing registration No.KA-17/A-1482, and KSRTC bus bearing registrationNo.KA-29 F-778, and the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant is not in dispute in this appeal. The claimant's appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. Admittedly, the claimant sustained injuries to right side of clavicle, right side of metatarsal, left middle finger and multiple abrasions all over the body. In support of his claim, the claimant placed on record Ex.P.5-wound certificate, Ex.P.13-discharge card, Exs.P.14 and P.15-out patient records and Ex.P.17-disability certificate. But, the claimant has failed to examine either the treated doctor or any other doctor or the doctor who had issued the disability certificate at Ex.P.17 which indicates that the claimant had suffered 15 to 17% disability. In the absence of any medical evidence, the Tribunal is justified in not awarding any compensation on the head 'loss of future income due to disability'. The Tribunal taking note of the injuries sustained, treatment taken as an inpatient and medical records, awarded total global compensation of Rs.40,000/-. In my opinion, the same is on the lower side. Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant, treatment taken by him and the medical records, I am of the view that the claimant would be entitled for another sum of Rs.20,000/- as global compensation in addition to Rs.40,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of the realization. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 19.03.2011 passed in M.V.C. No.522/2009 passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified. The claimant is entitled to an enhanced global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, in addition to Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.