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 claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.03.2013 passed by the Fast Track Court-II and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in M.V.C.No.1320/2012. 3. Parties wil l be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts giving rise to the fi l ing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.07.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. the claimant was going as a pedestrian on the left side of the road and when he came near Rampur bus stand a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA.23/F-448 being driven by its driver in a rash and negl igent manner dashed against the claimant. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Banahatti where he was treated for first aid and later shifted to Mission Hospital, Miraj wherein he was treated as an inpatient for a month and underwent treatment and fol low up treatment as wel l. 5. The claimant fi led a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal in MVC.No.1320/2012 on the ground that he has spent huge sums of money for the treatment of the injuries sustained in the road accident and that he was working as a cool ie due to the impact of the accident, he cannot continue his work and claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest towards the injuries sustained by the road accident. 6. Upon issuance of notice, the respondent- Corporation appeared and filed its statement of objections contending that the accident occurred due to negl igence of the claimant in the way he was walking on the street and not because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to Corporation. The age, avocation, and income of the claimant were also denied by the Corporation. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The age, avocation, and income of the claimant were also denied by the Corporation. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The claimant in order to prove the case, examined three witnesses, himsel f as PW.1 and other two witnesses as PW.2 and PW3 and got marked about 21 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.21. On the other hand the respondent- Corporation examined one witness namely the driver of the offending vehicle, but did not produce any documents, on its behalf. 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 offending vehicle and further held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,51,891/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The claimant has fi led the subject appeal chal lenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Heard learned counsel Sri Hanumant R.Latur appearing for claimants and learned counsel Sri S.C.Bhuti appearing for Respondent- Corporation. 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 15% as against disabil ity of 50% and 63% given by two doctors by separate disabi l ity certificates, one to the injury of the body and another to the head being nuero disabi l ity, merely on placing rel iance upon the wound certif icate and would further contend that on various other heads the compensation awarded is on the lower side and seeks enhancement. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only issue arises for my consideration in the subject appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation. 14. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to the income as claimed at Rs.8,000/-. Hence, the notional income as per the Guidel ines/Chart issued by the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee is taken into consideration. The only issue arises for my consideration in the subject appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation. 14. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to the income as claimed at Rs.8,000/-. Hence, the notional income as per the Guidel ines/Chart issued by the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Committee is taken into consideration. The accident is of the year 2011, hence the notional income would be Rs.6,000/- per month. Age of the claimant as on the date of accident was 32 years, Hence, the appl icable multipl ier would be "16". 15. In regard to the disabi lity of the claimant, PW.2 is a doctor who assesses the disabil ity of the claimant at 50% to 60 % and another doctor who assessed the disabi l ity of the claimant for total hearing loss in relation to both the ears as 63% in terms of Ex.P.14. The Tribunal on its own without any basis has discarded the evidence and without arriving at any formula for reduction, has reduced the disabil ity to 15%. 16. Hence, in the pecul iar facts and circumstances of the case, the disabi lity of the claimant is assessed in the fol lowing manner, 1/3rd of both the disabi l ities are put together and the disabi l ity is assessed at 35% to whole body to the claimant. Hence, the compensation on account of loss of future income is determined in the fol lowing manner. Which is assessed at Rs.4,03,200/- (Rs.6,000/- X 12 X 16 X 35 / 100) as against Rs.1,29,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. On the head of pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-, which I deem it appropriate to enhance it to Rs.50,000/- and the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earning during laid up period. Since the income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month, the loss of income during the laid up period is assessed at Rs.12,000/-. Towards conveyance charges the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,000/- which I deem it appropriate to enhance it to Rs.5,000/-. Since the claimant has suffered major injuries, I deem it to appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of amenities. Rest of the findings recorded by the Tribunal is left undisturbed. Towards conveyance charges the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,000/- which I deem it appropriate to enhance it to Rs.5,000/-. Since the claimant has suffered major injuries, I deem it to appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of amenities. Rest of the findings recorded by the Tribunal is left undisturbed. Hence, the claimant is entitled a total compensation of Rs.5,64,891/- as against Rs.2,51,891/- awarded by the Tribunal in the fol lowing manner. S l. No. Part iculars Amount in Rs. 1 Towards pain and su ffering 50,000/- 2 Towards medical bills 58,291/- 3 Towards disability 4,03,200/- 4 Future medical expenses 15,000/- 5 Towards attendant and diet charges . 6,000/- 6 Towards loss of earning during laid up period. 12,000/- 7 Towards conveyance 5,000/- 8 Towards loss o f amenities 15,000/- TOTAL 5,64,491/- Awarded by the Tribunal 2,51,891/- Enhanced Compensat ion 3,12,600/- 18. It is needless to state that the aforesaid enhanced compensation shal l carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition ti l l its satisfaction. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modi fied. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.