JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 26.03.2014 passed in MVC.No.599/2012 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and the Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal at Kundapura. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: That on 19.05.2012 at about 13-00 hours, the appellant herein was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-20-Q-5747 along with another person from Mudoor towards Jadkal bus stop very slowly and carefully, when they reached near Selkodu of Jadkal Village, at that time, a Bolero pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-C-2867 came from Mudoor towards Jadkal side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant’s motor cycle. Due to the said impact, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, he is unable to attend to his work, he is also not in a position to do his basic work and he has sustained permanent disability. 3. The appellant further stated in the claim petition that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapura, wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 19.05.2012 to 28.05.2012 and he took treatment as an out patient. He underwent surgery in the said hospital. Pursuant to which, the appellant was advised follow up and check up and to take rest. Pursuant to filing of the claim petition, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the driver and owner and respondent No.3 being the Insurer of vehicle appeared through their counsel and respondent No.3 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. In the defence taken by respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of Bolero pick up vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-C-2867 and the liability to be subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent No.3 denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero pick up vehicle. On the contrary, respondent No.3 took up the contention that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and contributory negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e. the appellant herein. Respondent No.3 denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero pick up vehicle. On the contrary, respondent No.3 took up the contention that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and contributory negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e. the appellant herein. It was further contended by respondent No.3 that the rider of the motor cycle was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of the accident and as such, he was not entitled for compensation. Respondent No.3 also took up contention that the alleged injuries sustained by the appellant was denied. The respondent has also denied the age, avocation and income of the appellant and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In support of his case, the claimant/appellant herein examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The respondents neither examined any witness nor marked any documents. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident alleged to have taken place on 19-05-2012 at about 13-00 hours, while he was traveling in motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-Q-5747 near Selkodu of Jadkal Village and it is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bolero Pick-up bearing Reg.No.KA-20-C-2867? 2. Whether the 3rd respondent proves that due to contributory negligence of rider of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-20-Q-5747 the accident occurred? 3. Whether the 3rd respondent proves that the driver of Bolero Pick-up bearing Reg.No.KA-20-C-2867 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident? 4. …………” 7. Based on these issues, the parties lead in their evidence and the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and came to the conclusion that the appellant/claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,43,660/-under the following heads: 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000-00 2 Medical expenses Rs.28,660-00 3 Loss of earning during the laid up period Rs.20,000-00 4 Disability Rs.40,000-00 5 Loss of amenities Rs.15,000-00 Total Rs.1,43,660-00 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that he had filed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs.10,45,000/-as against the respondents and the Tribunal without appreciating the material documents produced, has erred in awarding a meager compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the wound certificate, medical bills and further expenditure spent by the appellant for purchasing all medicines have not been considered by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and he has undergone 8% disability to the whole body and the Tribunal has failed to award the compensation in par with the disability suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal failed to award the compensation under the head of extra nourishment, pain and agony, loss of earning during laid up period and loss of future medical expenses. The appellant was working as a Cook at Hotel Mysore Café at Mathunga, Mumbai and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/-per month and the Tribunal has not considered his income and has taken a sum of Rs.5,000/-to award the said compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel vehemently submits that on all these counts, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and the same requires to be enhanced. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as it is the rider of the motor cycle i.e. the appellant, who was responsible and negligent for having caused the accident. Hence, it is a contributory negligence on the part of the appellant that has to be attributed by this Court. He further contended that the appellant was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence. The appellant has not produced any documents to show his age, avocation and details of his income and therefore, the award of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. 12. Having gone through the material on record what needs to be considered is, “(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the gravity of the injury and the disability suffered by the appellant? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement?” 13. 12. Having gone through the material on record what needs to be considered is, “(i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the gravity of the injury and the disability suffered by the appellant? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement?” 13. It is seen from the records that as per Ex.P4, injury No.1 suffered by the appellant is grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. The appellant has also produced Ex.P13-medical file, which reveals that he was admitted to the hospital from 19.05.2012 to 28.05.2012. Therefore, PW.3-Doctor has deposed before the Court stating that the appellant has suffered the disability of 8% to the whole body and considering this aspect, the Tribunal has arrived at a compensation of Rs.40,000/-under the head of pain and suffering. No doubt, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the grievous nature of injury No.1 and the disability suffered by the appellant. Considering the aspect of the disability suffered at 8% to the whole body, I am of the opinion that the compensation is inadequate. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/-under the head of pain and suffering instead of Rs.40,000/-. 14. It is noted from the deposition of the appellant that he was working as a Cook at Hotel Mysore Café but he has not produced any document to show that he was working as a Cook in the said hotel and he has not examined his employer. Taking into consideration the work of the appellant, the Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/-per month and since he could not attend work for four months, it was calculated as Rs.20,000/-during laid up period. I am of the opinion that the appellant working as a Cook is not disputed, it is only the salary that has been disputed. It would be reasonable to take a sum of Rs.7,000/-as income in view of the fact that he was technically qualified to be a Cook and accordingly, for the loss of four months, Rs.7,000/-x 4 = Rs.28,000/-would be the reasonable amount for the laid up period instead of Rs.20,000/-. 15. It would be reasonable to take a sum of Rs.7,000/-as income in view of the fact that he was technically qualified to be a Cook and accordingly, for the loss of four months, Rs.7,000/-x 4 = Rs.28,000/-would be the reasonable amount for the laid up period instead of Rs.20,000/-. 15. Coming to aspect of disability, the appellant has got examined PW.3-the Consultant Surgeon at Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapura, who has deposed with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and has produced Ex.P13 to 18 and he has stated that the appellant has disability of 8% to the whole body, but the said witness was not subjected to cross-examination. The Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards disability. In my opinion, the Tribunal has fallen short to calculate the head of disability and therefore, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.47,040/-under the head of disability which would be Rs.7,000/-x 8% x 12 x 7 = Rs.47,040/-. Therefore, Rs.47,040/-would be the compensation amount under the head of disability instead of Rs.40,000/-. 16. Under the head of loss of amenities, the Tribunal has arrived at a sum of Rs.15,000/-for loss of amenities. It is seen that the appellant has undergone severe trauma and harassment during the period he was admitted to the hospital, which is borne by records. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/-under the head of loss of amenities instead of Rs.15,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.28,660/-under the head of medical expenses as per the medical bills submitted, which is just and reasonable and the same is not disturbed. 18. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not considered the medical expenses that would be incurred by the appellant for future as he continues to take treatment in the hospital from the Doctors for injuries sustained. Therefore, on this ground, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards future medical expenses. 19. The award and compensation of the Tribunal is modified as under: 1 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000-00 2 Medical expenses Rs.28,660-00 3 Loss of earning during the laid up period Rs.28,000-00 4 Disability Rs.47,040-00 5 Loss of amenities Rs.20,000-00 6 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000-00 Total Rs.1,83,700-00 Therefore, the appellant, in all, is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,83,700/-as against Rs.1,43,660/-awarded by the Tribunal. The same shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. The other conditions imposed by the Tribunal are sustained and the same are not disturbed. In view of the enhancement of compensation amount, respondent No.3-Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount with a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Respondent No.3 is permitted to file his vakalath within a period of two weeks. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.