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 14.06.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civi l Jude and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in M.V.C.No.829/2010. 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 23.05.2010 at about 2.45 p.m., the claimant was travel ing on his motorcycle baring registration No.KA.27/ Q.1602 from Joisarahal l i to Ranebennur, when he approached Sarvand cross, a canter lorry bearing registration No.KA.19/7908, which was coming from Ranebennur side being driven by its driver in a rash and negl igent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries al l over the body and was immediately shi fted to Government Hospital Ranebennur for primary treatment and was later shifted to Bapuj i Hospital, Davanagere where he took treatment for about two months. 5. The claimant fi led a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal in MVC.No.829/2010 on the ground that the claimant has spent huge sums of money for the treatment of the injuries sustained by him in the road accident and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.8,10,000/- along with interest. 6. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and placed exparte. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company fi led its statement of objections denying al l the petition averments. The age, occupation and the injuries sustained by him in the accident and expenditure incurred towards medical expenses were al l denied. 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 himself as P.W.1 and two doctors as P.W.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited 38 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.38. On the other hand the respondent-Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor marked any document on its behal f. 9. 8. In order to prove the case, claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and two doctors as P.W.1 and PW.2 and got exhibited 38 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.38. On the other hand the respondent-Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor marked any document on its behal f. 9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negl igent driving of the driver of the canter lorry and further held that claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,06,880/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the instant appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard learned counsel Sri G.N.Narasammanavar for Sri Lokesh Malaval l i appearing for appel lant-claimant and learned counsel Sri Nagaraj C.Kol loori appearing for respondent-Insurance Company. 11. Learned counsel for the appel lant would contend that the Tribunal has grossly erred in ignoring the disabi l ity given by the doctor with regard to head injury which resulted in total hearing loss and has confined the disabi lity to 12% which has varied the compensation this would disadvantage of the claimant. He would further contend that the Tribunal has awarded less compensation on al l other heads. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would contend that no evidence is placed with regard to income of the claimant but the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- as monthly income without any basis in terms of the chart issued by the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee, the notional income for the accident of the year 2010 is Rs.5,500/-. But the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.6,000/- and granted a compensation which is already on the higher side. But the facts remains that the insurance company is not in appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 14. Insofar as the issue with regard to disabil ity is concerned, PW.2 doctor who examined the claimant on 09.02.2012 with regard to physical disabi l ity and has given a disabi l ity certi ficate opining that the claimant has about 20% physical disabi l ity on the left ankle region. 14. Insofar as the issue with regard to disabil ity is concerned, PW.2 doctor who examined the claimant on 09.02.2012 with regard to physical disabi l ity and has given a disabi l ity certi ficate opining that the claimant has about 20% physical disabi l ity on the left ankle region. Further PW.3-doctor, who assessed the claimant on 06.02.2012 with regard to his head injury, has given disabil ity certificate opining that the claimant is around 45% of the total physical disabil ity with regard to both the injuries. The Tribunal restricted it at 12%. 15. The Tribunal has given reasons that if the disabi l ity of the claimant is at 45% to both the ears he ought to have had a hearing aid. There is no evidence let in before the Tribunal that, hearing aid was purchased or was to be purchased and even in the disabil ity certificate- Ex.P.24, there is no mention about the fact that the claimant had a hearing aid due to his disabil ity. In those circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly come to conclusion and the disabi l ity is restricted to 12% putting both the certi ficates together. Hence, the amount of compensation on loss of future income granted by Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 16. But the Tribunal has granted less compensation on various other heads which requires to be enhanced. Since the claimant has suffered two injuries one to the ankle and another to the head the compensation towards pain and suffering i.e., awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by another Rs.30,000/- and is assessed at Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards loss of amenities, hence, I deem it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities. The Tribunal has not granted any amount for the laid up period, for which I deem it appropriate to award Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period. Thus in al l the claimant is entitled to a enhanced compensation at Rs.57,000/- over and above the compensation determined by the Tribunal at Rs.2,06,880/-. It is needless to state that the aforesaid compensation shal l carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fi l ing of the petition til l the date of its satisfaction by the Insurance Company. It is needless to state that the aforesaid compensation shal l carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fi l ing of the petition til l the date of its satisfaction by the Insurance Company. For the aforesaid extent, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.