JUDGMENT N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimant is seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded to her by the Tribunal, in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the vehicle accident which was occurred on 06.01.2011 when she was travel ing in Tempo Trax vehicle bearing registration No. KA-37/8496. 2. The factum of the accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the claimant had suf fered injuries which had resulted in a permanent disabil ity to the Claimant to the extent of 15%. 3. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income Rs.3,000/- since there was no evidence to establ ish the actual income of the claimant and the Tribunal thereafter proceeded to award a sum of Rs.1,14,600/-. 4. The Tribunal, however, exonerated the l iabi l ity of the insurance company on the ground that the driver of Tempo Trax did not possess a val id driving l icence to drive a transport vehicle. 5. The f inding of the Tribunal, insofar as it relates to exonerating the liabi lity of insurance company is concerned, cannot be sustained in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2016) 4 SCC 298 . 6. In fact, it is submitted that an appeal f i led by the Insurance company in respect of other claimants chal lenging its l iabi lity has already been dismissed by this Court in M.F.A.No.100738/2016. 7. As a consequence, the award insofar as it relates to exonerating the insurance company from satisfying the award wi ll have to be set aside and the insurance company is thus saddled with the liabi l ity for payment of the compensation. 8. In this case, the petitioner has suf fered a fracture of right humerus which has resulted in shortening of her Limb, tenderness at the middle of the left arm, girth of the left arm has stood reduced by 3 cm and due to disuse and atrophy of muscle, she cannot to hold any object in her left hand and she has lost the grip movements. The claimant examined a medical expert as PW9 who opined that the claimant had suf fered permanent disabi l ity to the extent of 25% over her whole body. The claimant examined a medical expert as PW9 who opined that the claimant had suf fered permanent disabi l ity to the extent of 25% over her whole body. However, the Tribunal has taken view that the assessment of 25% was on higher side and it has proceeded to reduce it to 15%. 9. In my view, this f inding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. When a medical off icer was examined and he opined that the claimant suf fered a disabil ity to the extent of 25%, the same could not have been interfered with unless there were exceptional circumstances. In this case, the Doctor has opined that the claimant not only suf fered shortening of her limb but she has also lost the abil ity to hold any object in her left hand. 10. In my view, the assessment of disabil ity at 25% by the Doctor in the l ight of his evidence cannot be said to be excessive. I therefore held that the claimant has suf fered permanent physical disabil ity to the extent of 25% over her whole body. 11. As far as the monthly income of the Claimant was concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the same at Rs.3,000/- p.m on the ground that there was no evidence to establ ish the actual income. In my view, in such a situation, the prudent course to be adopted was to apply the sum determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority as monthly income for victims who were unable to establ ish their income, which would be of Rs.6,000/- in respect of the motor vehicle accident occurred in the year 2011. 12. The claimant was aged 45 years and therefore the multipl ier 14 would have to be appl ied. The claimant would thus be entitled sum of Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 14 x 25% = Rs.2,52,000/-. 13. As a consequence of the monthly income of the Claimant being taken as Rs.6,000/-, there would be a proportional increase to Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earning during the period of medical treatment. 14. The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. I f ind no reason to disturb the said finding. 15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of amenities. 14. The Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. I f ind no reason to disturb the said finding. 15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of amenities. In my view, the said amount is meager having to the fact the petitioner has 25% disabil ity to her whole body and she is not able to hold any object in her left hand and she has lost grip movements in her left hand. In my view, interest of justice would be served if a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities. 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment, food and attending charges which requires to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. In my view, this is on the lower side, having regard to the permanent disabi lity suffered by the claimant. In my view, interest of justice would be served if a sum to Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suf fering. 18. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the fol lowing sums:- Towards loss of future earnings : Rs. 2,52,000/- Towards loss of amenities : Rs. 50,000/- Towards attending charges : Rs. 10,000/- Towards pain & suffering : Rs. 50,000/- Towards loss of earning during medical treatment : Rs. 18,000/- Towards medical expenses : Rs. 3,000/- ___________ Total Rs. 3,83,000/- __________ The said amount shal l carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition ti l l the date of payment. 19. The insurance company is directed to pay/deposit compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.