JUDGMENT S.G.Pandit, J. - Both the claimant and the insurer are in appeal assailing the judgment and award, dated 03.02.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.2856 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for short 'the Tribunal'). The claimant has filed M.F.A. No.101735/2015 praying for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the insurer has filed M.F.A. No.101046/2015 questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The claimant injured filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that took place on 06.06.2012 involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EG-9471. It is stated that the claimant was aged 42 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing masonry work. It is stated that subsequent to sustaining of the accidental injuries, the claimant is not in a position to do the work which he was doing prior to the accident. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 even though served with notice, failed to appear and was place ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared and filed its objections denying the claim petition averments. Further, the insurer denied the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The insurer also denied the involvement of the motor cycle in the alleged accident, apart from contending that the rider of the motorcycle had no effective and valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. 3. The claimant, in support of his case, got himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined the doctor as P.W.2, apart from marking the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.15. The respondents also examined a doctor as R.W.1, apart from marking the documents as Exs.R.1 and R.5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire material placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,84,644/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, on the following heads: 1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,44,144/- 2. Loss of income during lay up period Rs. 18,000/- 3. Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 25,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life, happiness and frustration Rs. 10,000/- 5. Conveyance, attendant charges, food, nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 6. Loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- 7. Medical expenses Rs. 52,500/- 8. Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 1,44,144/- 2. Loss of income during lay up period Rs. 18,000/- 3. Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 25,000/- 4. Loss of amenities of life, happiness and frustration Rs. 10,000/- 5. Conveyance, attendant charges, food, nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 6. Loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- 7. Medical expenses Rs. 52,500/- 8. Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 2,84,644/- While awarding the above compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month, added 30% of the income towards future prospects and assessed the whole body disability at 11%. 4. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is before this Court, whereas the insurer is before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the insurer. Perused the trial Court records. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and also submits that the Tribunal failed to award appropriate compensation having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is his submission that the Tribunal committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month since the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing masonry work. Thus, he prays for revising the monthly income on the higher side. Further, the learned counsel would submit that P.W.2-doctor, who has been examined in support of the claimant's case, has deposed before the Tribunal that the claimant suffers from 35% disability, but the Tribunal ignoring the material evidence on record assessed the whole body disability at 11% which requires to be reassessed on the higher side. He submits that the claimant has sustained contusion over left leg, abrasion over left knee and comminuted fracture of upper 1/3rd of tibia and fibula which is a grievous injury. He submits that having regard to the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the claimant as an inpatient, the compensation awarded on the other heads are also on the lower side. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the claimant would not be entitled for enhancement of the compensation. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the claimant. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and the claimant would not be entitled for enhancement of the compensation. The learned counsel would further submit that the injury sustained by the claimant would not come in the way of the claimant carrying on his work as a mason and day-to-day activities. There is no evidence on record to establish that the injuries sustained by the claimant would come in the way of the claimant in carrying out his avocation as a mason and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 11%. In that circumstance, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal could not have added 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects and determine the compensation. It is his further submission that having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation awarded on other heads are on the higher side. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the insurer and dismissing the appeal of the claimant. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the trial Court records, the following points would arise for our consideration in both the appeals: i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation? and ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excess as contended by the insurer? 9. Answer to point Nos.i) and ii) would be in the affirmative and negative, and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed, for the following reasons: The accident is of the year 2012. The accident and accidental injuries sustained by the claimant involving motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EG-9471 is not in dispute in this appeal. Both, the claimant and the insurer are before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant states that he was doing mason work earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, no material is placed on record to establish the income earned by the claimant injured. In the absence of there being any material to establish the income of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the notional income at Rs.6,000/-. But, the notional income assessed by this Court and Lok Adalats, while settling the accidental claims of the year 2012, would be at Rs.6,500/- per month. In the absence of there being any material to establish the income of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the notional income at Rs.6,000/-. But, the notional income assessed by this Court and Lok Adalats, while settling the accidental claims of the year 2012, would be at Rs.6,500/- per month. While awarding the compensation under the head 'loss of future income', the Tribunal has added 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects. The Tribunal has committed an error in adding 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects in an injury case. However, since the notional income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.6,500/-, determination of the compensation under the head 'loss of future income', by adding 30% of the assessed income, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper. The claimant/appellant has sustained major injury of comminuted fracture of upper 1/3rd of tibia and fibula. He was inpatient for ten days from 06.06.2012 to 16.06.2012. The doctor-P.W.2, who is not a treated doctor and who has issued Ex.P.14-disability certificate was of the opinion that the claimant suffers from permanent physical disability to an extent of 35% to left lower limb. Normally, when a doctor assess the disability of a person to a particular limb, the permanent whole body disability would be assessed at 1/3rd of the disability assessed to a particular limb. In the present case, having regard to the evidence of the doctor-P.W.2, Ex.P.14-disability certificate and other material on record, we are of the view that the assessment of disability at 11% in relation to the whole body is proper and correct and the same needs no interference. The Tribunal looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant, nature of injuries, the evidence of the doctor-P.W.2 and other material on record, has properly awarded the compensation on other heads also, which needs no interference. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,84,644/- assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and the disability at 11% in relation to the whole body is proper and correct which needs no interference. 10. In view of the above, both the appeals filed by the claimant as well as by the insurer are dismissed. The amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.