JUDGMENT M.Nagaprasanna, J. - This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been fi led by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Fast Track Court-II, Bel lary and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-X, Bel lary (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in M.V.C.No.591/2008. 3. Parties wil l be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts, in terms of the averments made in the claim petition are that on 29.01.2008 the claimant who owned and was driving a Minidoor Auto bearing registration No.KA.16/A-2693 met with an accident with a lorry bearing registration No.KA.02/B-903 which was coming from Hubl i side being driven in a rash and negl igent manner dashed into the Minidoor Auto near Bharmasagar bye-pass road. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Primary Health Center, Bharmasagar and thereafter shi fted to Bangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient more than one moth and further he took treatment with private doctor. 5. The claimant fi led a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal in MVC.No.591/2008 on the ground that the claimant has spent huge sums of money for the treatment due to the injuries sustained in the accident and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,50,000/- along with interest. 6. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and was placed exparte. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company appeared, whi le admitting the pol icy denied the manner in which the accident took place. The age, avocation and income of the claimant were also denied. It was contended that the claimant did not have a val id driving licence as on the date of accident and hence the respondent-Insurance Company was not l iable to pay any compensation. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. In order to prove the case, claimant examined himsel f as P.W.1 and the treated doctor as P.W.2 and got exhibited 23 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.23. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. In order to prove the case, claimant examined himsel f as P.W.1 and the treated doctor as P.W.2 and got exhibited 23 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.23. On the other hand the respondent-Insurance Company though did not examine any witness but marked one document as Ex.R1-pol icy copy. 9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter al ia, held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,55,600/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum but attributed contributory negl igence to the claimant and restricted the amount of compensation payable to the claimant at 75% and 25% to be taken away. The claimant has preferred the subject appeal against the order of the Tribunal attributing contributory negl igence on the claimant to the tune of 25% and also on the quantum of compensation. 10. Heard learned counsel Sri Manjunath G.Pati l appearing for appel lant-claimant and learned counsel Sri M.K.Soudagar appearing for respondent-Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel for the appel lant would contend that that the Tribunal has grossly erred in restricting the disabi l ity of the claimant to 30% as against the evidence of the doctor who treated him for his neurological disorder at 75%. He would contend that, due to impact of the accident the claimant has lost his memory and both the legs have become weak, hence his avocation namely driver, cannot be done al l his l ife and would further contend that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on al l other heads is on the lower side. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company though have not fi led any appeal against the judgment and award of the Tribunal would contend that, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant with regard to the loss of memory of the claimant is unfounded as he has being subjected to examination and cross-examination before the Tribunal and there is no finding of the Tribunal that he could not answer any question properly and if he has lost his memory due to impact of the accident such a finding ought to have been recorded by the Tribunal and this is a matter of evidence. 13. 13. Therefore, he would also contend that under no head the quantum of compensation can be increased as what has been granted to the claimant is just and proper. Since the claimant is owner cum driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal has recorded that, he can continue with the maintenance of the vehicle, his future income is not lost to the extent that is claimed. Insofar as contributory negl igence is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal is appropriate and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 15. With regard to the disabi l ity of the claimant which is a part of the determinative factor for assessment of loss of future income, the evidence of the doctor-PW.2 on the disabi l ity certi ficate is required to be noticed. For the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road accident with regard to other physical disabil ities, though the disabi l ity certi ficate is produced, no doctor examined with regard to the same. The doctor who treated the claimant for neurological disorder is examined as PW.2. The doctor who treated the claimant in his evidence clearly states that the claimant has weakness on al l four l imbs and the same is sustained by the doctor in the cross examination. 16. Though the doctor has fixed 75% neurological disabi l ity, the Tribunal without recording any reason has reduced it to 30%. The evidence of the doctor with regard to neurological disorder is not that the disorder is curable or would come down in future. For this reason it is considered to be a permanent partial disabi l ity for spine and the legs. Hence, on this ground, since doctor has assessed disabi l ity at 75%, I deem it appropriate to increase disabi l ity to 40% for determination of loss of future income. Hence, the loss of future income is assessed at Rs.2,80,800/- (Rs.4,500 X 12 X 13 X 40/100) as against Rs.2,31,100/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of amenities, which I deem it appropriate to enhance to Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards attendant charges, food & nourishment and conveyance charges, which I deem it appropriate to enhance it by Rs.10,000/- 18. 17. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of amenities, which I deem it appropriate to enhance to Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards attendant charges, food & nourishment and conveyance charges, which I deem it appropriate to enhance it by Rs.10,000/- 18. With regard to the contributory negl igence attributed by the Tribunal, a perusal of the reasoning given by the Tribunal for attribution of contributory negl igence upon the claimant is hardy convincing, there are no reasons speci fically recorded by the Tribunal. However, the fact remains that the claimant was also negl igent to some extent with regard to not being cautious whi le crossing the highway when he was driving the vehicle owned by him. But that cannot be a contributory negl igence to the tune of 25%, hence I deem it appropriate to reduce the attribution of contributory negl igence upon the claimant to 10% as against 25% awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the claimant is entitled to 90% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with 10% deducted towards contributory negl igence on the part of the owner cum driver of the vehicle namely the claimant. Hence the claimant is entitled to a total compensation in the fol lowing terms. Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards Medical Expenses 87,500/- 2 Towards attendant, food % nourishment and Conveyance charges 25,000/- 3 Pain and Suf fering 25,000/- 4 Loss o f income during treatment period. 22,500/- 5 Loss o f further income 2,80,800/- 6 Loss o f amenities 30,000/- TOTAL 4,70,800/- 19. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to a compensation at Rs.4,70,800/- as against Rs.3,55,600/- determined by the Tribunal and the claimant would be entitled to 90% of compensation i.e., Rs.4,23,720/-. 20. Since there is a delay of 783 days in fi l ing the appeal, this Court by order dated 09.03.2016, whi le condoning the delay has held that the claimant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in case there is enhancement of compensation. In the l ight of the said order, the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fi ling the petition til l the date of its satisfaction, except the delayed period of 783 days. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. In the l ight of the said order, the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fi ling the petition til l the date of its satisfaction, except the delayed period of 783 days. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.