JUDGMENT B.M.Shyam Prasad, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties with their consent for final disposal, and perused the records. 2. The appeal in MFA 5498/2012 is filed by the insurer impugning the judgment and award dated 26.11.2011 in MVC No.433/2011 on the file of the MACT and Court of Small Causes(SCCH-3), Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), and the other appeal in MFA 882/2013 is filed by the claimant-appellant in the aforesaid claim petition. The insurer has filed its appeal in MFA 5498/2012 disputing, but without denying its liability, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.3,86,668/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal should have deducted some part of the compensation on the ground of contributory negligence. The claimant appellant has filed the appeal in MFA 882/2013 seeking enhancement in the compensation. 3. The appellant claimant filed the claim petition in MVC No.433/2011 asserting that on 14.12.2010 when she was trying to cross Cottonpet main road, the driver of the scooter bearing Registration No.KA-04-HE-800 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. She suffered grievous injuries and was shifted to KIMS Hospital. She was an inpatient with the said hospital and she has incurred substantial expenses towards medicine, nourishment and other costs. She has also asserted that as of the date of the accident, she was working as a maid servant earning Rs.4500/- per month, and because of the injuries suffered by her in the accident, the residual physical inability and her age (she asserts she was aged 52 years as of the date of the accident), she has lost her earning capacity. 4. The claimant - appellant has examined herself as PW.1 and Dr.H.B.Shivakumar, who treated her, is examined as PW.2. Insofar as the documentary evidence, the claimant - appellant has relied upon Police records (FIR, Complaint, spot sketch, spot mahazar, charge sheet and Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report) and medical records (would certificate, discharge summary, case sheet, X-ray film and medical bills). 4. The claimant - appellant has examined herself as PW.1 and Dr.H.B.Shivakumar, who treated her, is examined as PW.2. Insofar as the documentary evidence, the claimant - appellant has relied upon Police records (FIR, Complaint, spot sketch, spot mahazar, charge sheet and Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report) and medical records (would certificate, discharge summary, case sheet, X-ray film and medical bills). The Tribunal, while answering Issue No.1 as regards whether the claimant - appellant is able to prove that she has suffered injuries in a road accident because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, has concluded in the affirmative holding that the appellant is able to establish that she was injured in a road accident brought about by the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The Tribunal has relied upon the oral testimony of the claimant - appellant and the Police records to arrive at its conclusion opining that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the claimant - appellant's case of negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle corroborated by the Police records. As regards the compensation, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,86,668/- under the following heads: Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Loss of amenities and future happiness Rs. 50,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 35,468/- Incidental expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of income during laid-up period (4 months) Rs. 18,000/- Loss of future income Rs. 1,78,200/- Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- TOTAL Rs.3,86,668/- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant - insurer submits that the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the driver of the offending vehicle (insured vehicle) was rash and negligent. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the claimant - appellant was trying to cross a busy 'one-way street at a place where there was no 'zebra crossing'. The appellant - claimant, who was aged 52 as of the date of the accident, should have known that she could not cross a busy 'one-way street' at any place other than the place earmarked for crossing. If this circumstance is considered, as it should be, negligence should also be attributed to the claimant - appellant and the Tribunal has erred in this regard. 7. If this circumstance is considered, as it should be, negligence should also be attributed to the claimant - appellant and the Tribunal has erred in this regard. 7. The learned counsel for the insurer appellant next submits that the medical evidence is that the claimant has suffered fracture of distal shaft of both tibia and fibula of left leg and also fracture of rib bones, but on receiving treatment she has recovered without impairment. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- each towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of future happiness. The award of these amounts is a duplication resulting in unjustified and exaggerated award, especially when the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,200/- towards loss of future earning capacity. Further, the Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses without any evidence in this regard. If the compensation is computed considering these circumstances, there should be reduction in the compensation awarded under these heads. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant - appellant submits that the undisputed evidence on record is that the claimant - appellant aged about 52 as of the date of the accident, was working as a housemaid. The Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month; this is on the lower side. In cases where there is no proof of actual evidence but there is evidence to establish that the injured/deceased were gainfully employed, notional income as per the schedule evolved for settlement in Lok Adalat is taken. As per such schedule, in cases of accidents in the year 2010, notional income should be taken at Rs.5500/- per month. The medical evidence is that the claimant has suffered not just fracture of multiple rib bones but also fracture of distal shaft of both the bones of the left leg and there is mal-union. The further evidence is that the claimant - appellant had to undergo surgery for wound debridement, calconeal traction and external fixators. As such, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher sum towards pain and suffering and a sum higher than Rs.5000/- towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. 9. The further evidence is that the claimant - appellant had to undergo surgery for wound debridement, calconeal traction and external fixators. As such, the Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher sum towards pain and suffering and a sum higher than Rs.5000/- towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges. 9. In the light of these submissions, the questions that arise for consideration are: (a) Whether the Tribunal's opinion that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and the claimant - appellant is injured because of such rash and negligent driving is justified in the light of evidence on record, and (b) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation." 10. The claimant - appellant has specifically deposed that she was trying to cross Cottonpet main road, admittedly a one-way street, when the driver of the offending vehicle dashed against her and the driver was rash and negligent. In support of her case, the claimant appellant has relied inter alia upon a certified copy of the spot sketch. It is seen from this sketch that the accident has occurred at the intersection of two roads and at a distance of about 9 feet from the edge of the 20feet road. The place of accident is at a distance of 9 feet from that side of the road from which the claimant - appellant was trying to cross. This document is undisputed, and the aforesaid circumstances demonstrate that the driver of the offending vehicle, who dashed against the claimant - appellant at an intersection, was not diligent. It can be reasonably opined that if the driver was diligent he would have been slower and therefore able to avoid a pedestrian who was crossing. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal is justified in opining that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent and he caused the accident. Therefore, no interference is necessary on this ground. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation, it would be necessary to record undisputed facts. The claimant appellant, being aged 52, was working as a housemaid. She suffered fractures in the rib and in the left leg requiring multiple surgeries, including the surgery for removal of fixators. She was hospitalized on multiple occasions. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation, it would be necessary to record undisputed facts. The claimant appellant, being aged 52, was working as a housemaid. She suffered fractures in the rib and in the left leg requiring multiple surgeries, including the surgery for removal of fixators. She was hospitalized on multiple occasions. The doctor, PW.2, while speaking about the injuries suffered by the claimant - appellant, the surgeries undergone by her and the assessment of difficulties, has opined that there is mal-union of the fracture in the left leg with shortening. The doctor has assessed the whole body disability at 30%. Significantly, the photographs of the appellant - claimant are marked as Ex.P9, and these photographs also corroborate the appellant claimant's case that there is shortening of the limb and deformation. 12. The requirement in law is to award just and reasonable compensation, and to achieve this in a scientific manner, compensation is determined against definite parameters like pain and suffering, loss of amenity and loss of future earning disability as well as loss of income during laid up period and medical expenses. Even if it could be argued that there is a duplication in awarding compensation of Rs.50000/- each towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness, and a higher sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses, the claimant - appellant would also be entitled for computation of award towards loss of future earning capacity based on a reasonable notional income. The learned Counsel for the claimant is justified in arguing that, in the facts and circumstances as already discussed, the claimant - appellant would be entitled for computation of loss of future earning ability with notional income at Rs.5500/- per month and for enhanced amount towards nourishment and other expenses. In the circumstances of the case and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, including the award towards pain and suffering, loss of amenity and future medical expenses, this Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.3,86,668/- is just and reasonable compensation and as such is not a bonanza. The second question is answered accordingly. For the foregoing, both the appeals in MFA 5498/2012 and MFA 882/2013 are dismissed. The Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit in MFA 5498/2012 to the Tribunal for disbursement.