JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - The injured claimant has filed this appeal questioning the common judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed by the IX District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the appeal are as under : It is contended in the claim petition that on 06.08.2013, at about 6.00 p.m., one Ravindra Shivaji Tarlekar was proceeding in the motorcycle as pillion rider and his friend Pradeep was riding the motorcycle bearing No.MH-09-AV 5107 from Ajara towards Chandagad and when they reached village limits of Bhavevadi near electric tower, one Mahindra Scorpio car bearing No.MH-09-AQ-210 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to which both of them fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter they were shifted to Hattaraki hospital and trauma centre Gadinglaj. It is further contended that the doctors have operated on the fractured leg of the claimant and implants were fixed. He has spent 2.50 lakhs towards treatment. It is contended that Ravindra was doing a mason work and was earning 12,000/- per month and due to accident he is unable to carry on work and sought for suitable compensation. 3. On service of notice, the first respondent i.e., owner of Scorpio car remained absent and placed exparte. Respondent No.2-the Insurance company appeared before the tribunal and filed the written statement denying the claim petition averments in toto including the jurisdiction aspect. The Insurance company also denied as on the date of accident, the Scorpio car was not insured with the Insurance company and the driver of the car was not holding a valid driving licence and sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. Based on the same, the tribunal raised the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 6/8/2013 at about 6.00 p.m. when the petitioner was coming on motorcycle bearing No.MH-09-AV-5107 as pillion rider near an electric tower at Bhavewadi on Ajara- Chandagad Road, at that time, the rider of Mahindra Scorpio No.MH-09/AC-210 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle and caused the accident and as a result of it, he sustained grievous injuries? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what amount? 3. What order or award? Addl.Issue (dtd 3.8.2015) 1. Whether this Tribunal has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition? 5. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what amount? 3. What order or award? Addl.Issue (dtd 3.8.2015) 1. Whether this Tribunal has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition? 5. To prove the claim petition, the injured claimant got examined as PW1 and other injured person got examined as PW2 and Doctor Ravindra D. Hattarki got examined as PW3 and documents got marked as Ex.P1 to P129. On behalf of respondents, there was no evidence adduced. 6. After hearing the parties, the tribunal answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and allowed the claim petition awarding compensation at Rs.7,19,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. as under : 1 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 2 Medicine and hospital charges 1,20,000/- 3 Nourishment charges 2,000/- 4 Attendant and conveyance charges 3,000/- 5 Loss of income during treatment period 45,000/- 6 Loss of future income 4,59,000/- 7 Loss of amenities and future happiness 40,000/- TOTAL 7,19,000/- 7. It is that judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the tribunal has not properly assessed the monthly income and sought for enhancement of the compensation. He also contended that tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. He further contended that the tribunal has not properly assessed the disability factor, wherein, the doctor has given the disability certificate to the extent of 40% to the whole body. The tribunal ought to have considered 100% disability having regard to the nature of injury sustained. He further submits that the grant of compensation on other heads is on lower side. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submitted that the tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income and disability factor and also contributory negligence and passed the judgment and award which is perfectly valid and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the parties, the only point would arise for consideration is : 1. Whether the appellant-claimant has made out a case for enhancement of compensation? 11. Answer to the above point is affirmative for the following reasons: 12. In this matter, on record, the accident that has taken place on 06.08.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., involving the motorcycle bearing No.MH-09-AV-5107 and Mahindra Scorpio car bearing Reg.No.MH-09-AQ-210 stands proved. Whether the appellant-claimant has made out a case for enhancement of compensation? 11. Answer to the above point is affirmative for the following reasons: 12. In this matter, on record, the accident that has taken place on 06.08.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., involving the motorcycle bearing No.MH-09-AV-5107 and Mahindra Scorpio car bearing Reg.No.MH-09-AQ-210 stands proved. So also it is proved that the appellant having sustained injuries in the very same accident. 13. On record, there is no plausible material placed by the appellant-claimant to prove the monthly income at Rs.12,000/- by doing mason work. As such, the tribunal has taken Rs.7,500/- as the monthly income notionally. 14. For the accident of the year 2013, this court and Lok Adalaths would normally assess the monthly income at Rs.7,000/- notionally in the absence of any formal proof of the income. In the present case, the tribunal in fact assessed Rs.500/- more than the normal assessment. 15. Therefore, the argument put forward on behalf of appellant that the tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income cannot be countenanced in law. 16. The doctor who examined the injured namely Ravindra D. Hattaraki has given disability certificate vide Ex.P16. According to doctor, there is functional disability at 40% to the whole body. The tribunal has taken into account 30% of the disability mentioned in Ex.P16. 17. Pw3 who has issued Ex.P16 disability certificate has not stated specifically as to what is the disability to particular limb, but has given for the whole body. Under circumstances, the tribunal has taken into consideration 30% disability to the whole body. We do not find any serious infirmity in the tribunal reaching such a finding even after reappreciation of material on record. 18. On the head of nourishment charges the tribunal has granted only Rs.2,000/-. Having regard to the nature of injury sustained by the claimant, we deem it appropriate to increase another a sum of Rs.13,000/-. 19. On the head of attendant charges the tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,000/-, we deem it appropriate to increase by another sum of Rs.7,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the foregoing discussions, the above point is answered in the affirmative. 19. On the head of attendant charges the tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,000/-, we deem it appropriate to increase by another sum of Rs.7,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the foregoing discussions, the above point is answered in the affirmative. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, appeal is hereby allowed. The respondent-Insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by this court with up to date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Draw modified decree accordingly.