JUDGMENT N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimant, in this appeal, is seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal. 2. It is not in dispute that the claimant was traveling in Tempo trax bearing registration No.KA- 37/8496 which met with an accident on 06.01.2011, as a result of which, the claimant suffered a fracture of her left femur, for which she sought for compensation. 3. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence adduced before it, recorded a f inding that the accident did occur due to the negligence of the driver of the Tempo Trax and it proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,68,660/-. It however exonerated the insurance company from the liability of satisfying the award on the grounds that the driver of the Tempo Trax did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. 4. In fact, it is submitted that the appeal filed by the insurance company in respect of other claimants challenging the liability has already been dismissed by this Court in M.F.A.No.100738/2016. 5. In my view, the finding regarding the exoneration of liability of the Insurance company cannot be sustained in view of the decision rendered by Apex Court in the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. OrientalInsurance Company Limited and others, (2016) 4 SCC 298 and also decision rendered in the companion appeals relating to the same accident in MFA Nos. 24193/2012, 24194/2012, 24196/2012, 24197/2012, 24198/2012 & 24199/2012. 6. As a consequence, the award insofar as it relates to exonerating the insurance company from satisfying the award will have to be set aside and the insurance company is thus saddled with the liability for payment of the compensation. 7. In this case, the claimant claimed she was aged 17 years at the time of accident and she was working as Tailor earning a monthly income Rs.6,000/-. Since there was no evidence to establish the annualincome, the Tribunal assessed the income as Rs.3,000/- per month. In my view, in such a situation it would be prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for awarding compensation to motor vehicle victims, which would be sum of Rs.6,000/- in respect of the accident which occurred in the year 2011. 8. In my view, in such a situation it would be prudent to adopt the monthly income determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for awarding compensation to motor vehicle victims, which would be sum of Rs.6,000/- in respect of the accident which occurred in the year 2011. 8. The claimant suf fered fracture on left femur and in order to establish the injuries and disability she had examined a medical expert, Dr. Ramakrishna, as P.W.8. The Doctor opined that the claimant's left limb had been shortened by 2 cm and the Girth of the right thigh was reduced to 2 cm due to wasting of thigh muscles. The doctor opined that the claimant had diff iculty in climbing the steps and had to walk with the support of stick. The Doctor opined that the claimant had suf fered disability to the extent of 25% to her whole body. However, the Tribunal reduced the disability to 15% on the grounds that assessment appeared to be higher side. 9. In my view, this approach of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. Once a medical report has been examined and he has stated the extent of disability and has also narrated the consequence of the disability, the Tribunal ought not to have reduced disability 25% to 15%. I therefore, hold that the claimant has suf fered a disability to the extent of 25% to her whole body. 10. Since the monthly income is being taken as Rs.6,000/- and the disability is being determined at 25%, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,000 x 12 x 18 x 25% which would amount to Rs.3,24,000/-. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.4,000/- as loss of amenities. In my view, this amount is required to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, since there is a shortening of the left limb and the claimant has to walk with a stick. 12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.32,000/- towards pain and suf fering. In my view this sum is also required to enhance to Rs.50,000/-. 13. Since, the monthly income is being taken as Rs.6,000/-, the loss of earning during the treatment period would be Rs.18,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,460/- towards medical expenses and this assessment has been made on the basis of documentary evidence and hence the same is confirmed. 15. 13. Since, the monthly income is being taken as Rs.6,000/-, the loss of earning during the treatment period would be Rs.18,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.23,460/- towards medical expenses and this assessment has been made on the basis of documentary evidence and hence the same is confirmed. 15. The award of Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance, nourishment food and attending charges is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. 16. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to the following sums: Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- Loss of Earning during Medical Treatment Rs. 18,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 23,460/- Loss of future earnings Rs. 3,24,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Nourishment Rs. 10,000/- ____________ TOTAL Rs. 4,75,460/- _____________ The said amount shall carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. 17. The Insurance company is directed to pay/deposit the said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the appealis allowed in part.