JUDGMENT : H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.09.2013 the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-01/X-1775 on Palamner-Bangalore NH-4 road, near Govindasettipalli Cross. At that time, a car bearing Registration No. KA-53/P-7459 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained injuries and was hospitalised. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he was a mechanic and was earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. It was further pleaded that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, claimant has suffered permanent disability and was unable to do his regular work and has lost his earnings. It was further pleaded that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. On service of notice, the respondent No. 2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was further pleaded that the claimant neither knew how to drive the motorcycle nor had valid documents pertaining to vehicle and had consumed alcohol. He was also not wearing the helmet and the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. The respondent No. 1 did not appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr. R. Kantharaju as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.37. On behalf of the respondent, driver of the car was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 and R2. On behalf of the claimant, a Neuro Surgeon was examined as CW-1 and documents were exhibited namely Ex.C1 to C4. R. Kantharaju as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.37. On behalf of the respondent, driver of the car was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 and R2. On behalf of the claimant, a Neuro Surgeon was examined as CW-1 and documents were exhibited namely Ex.C1 to C4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter-alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 12,07,890/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that at the time of the accident claimant was aged about 24 years and he was a mechanic and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as only Rs. 5,000/- per month and the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the amount towards the personal expenses of the claimant from the monthly income. Secondly, due to the accident claimant had suffered grievous injuries. As per the evidence of the orthopedic doctor - PW-2, claimant has suffered shortening of 2 inches of the right lower limb and he has suffered disability of right lower limb to the extent of 69.31% and suffered whole body disability of 23.1% and as per the evidence of the neuro-surgeon - CW-1, claimant has some behavioral problem due to brain injury and he has suffered disability of 49.55% of neurobehavioral nature and cognitive disability and with the said disability he cannot do his work as he was doing earlier. But the Tribunal is not justified in taking the whole body disability as 50%. Thirdly, claimant has undergone surgery and he has suffered lot of pain during the course of treatment and the compensation awarded under the head pain and agony is on the lower side. Fourthly, claimant has to suffer the disability throughout his life and the compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities is on the lower side. Fifthly, claimant was in the hospital for nearly two months in different spells and the compensation awarded under the head food, conveyance, nourishment and other expenses is also on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Fifthly, claimant was in the hospital for nearly two months in different spells and the compensation awarded under the head food, conveyance, nourishment and other expenses is also on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of the compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that even though the claimant has claimed that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documentary evidence to establish the aforesaid fact and therefore the Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of the claimant as Rs. 5,000/-. Secondly, even though in the claim petition the age of the claimant is shown as 24 years, he has not produced any document to establish the same and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the age of the claimant as 26 years on the basis of the medical records and rightly applied the multiplier of 17. Thirdly, claimant has not produced any document to show that due to the injuries, he is unable to do his work, he was totally bed-ridden and has suffered any future loss of income and the Tribunal grossly erred in directing addition of 50% of the income on account of future prospects to the income of the claimant. The amount of compensation which has been awarded is just and proper and does not call for interference. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimant at the time of accident was aged 26 years and was a mechanic. He has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2013, the notional income has to be taken at Rs. 8,000/- p.m. Since the monthly income of the claimant has been assessed at Rs. 8,000/- the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head loss of income during laid up period has to be enhanced. 8. Due to the accident the claimant suffered head injury, i.e. diffuse axonal injury and right femur closed fracture and also suffered 69.31% to right lower limb and 23.1% to the whole body and neuro-behavioral and cognitive disability at 49.55%. 8. Due to the accident the claimant suffered head injury, i.e. diffuse axonal injury and right femur closed fracture and also suffered 69.31% to right lower limb and 23.1% to the whole body and neuro-behavioral and cognitive disability at 49.55%. Taking into consideration the deposition of the doctors PW-2 and CW-1 and the wound certificate at Ex.P7 and Exs.C1 to C4, we are of the opinion that the whole body disability has to be considered at 60%. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant as 26 years, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 9,79,200/- on account of loss of future earning capacity. The claimant has suffered grievous injuries and remained inpatient for more than two months in different spells and thereafter, has received treatment. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that he was under treatment for ten months and hence, he is entitled to Rs. 80,000/- on account of loss of income during the period of treatment. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery he has suffered lot of pain. We are inclined to enhance the sum awarded under the head pain and agony to Rs. 1.00 lakh. Since claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 60% and he has to suffer the same throughout his life, we are inclined to enhance the sum awarded under the head loss of amenities to Rs. 1.00 lakh. Since the claimant was hospitalized for a period of two months in different spells, we are inclined to enhance the sum awarded under the head food, conveyance, nourishment and other expenses to Rs. 70,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads medical expenses and future medical expenses are not disturbed. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,97,091/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.