JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - Mfa No.24454/2012 has been filed by the pillion rider, MFA No.24455/2012 has been filed by the rider and MFA No.23388/2012 has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the common judgment and award dated 08.02.2012 passed by the Fast Track -III and Addl. MACT, Belagavi ('Tribunal', for short) in MVC Nos. 459/2010 and 1932/2010 respectively. 2. The Tribunal by way of above judgment has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of the appellant in MFA No.24454/2012 (MVC No.459/2010) and Rs.2,10,700/- in favour of the appellant in MFA No.24455/2012 (MVC No.1932/2010) for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that occurred on 16.08.2010. 3. Heard. Admit. 4. With the consent of both the sides, the above appeals are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, on 16.08.2010, about 7.30 pm, when the petitioner in MVC No.1932/2010 was proceeding from Belagavi to Dandeli, petitioner in MVC No.459/2010 being the pillion rider, near Ramnagar, all of a sudden a Maruti car bearing No.MH-02/K-6134, driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed towards the right side of the motorcycle causing the accident, as a result of which the petitioner's motorcycle fell down and the petitioners sustained injuries, requiring medical treatment. On this basis the petitioners had approached the Tribunal. 6. The objections raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioners inasmuch as rider of the motorcycle is supposed to have ridden the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and was riding in the middle of the road, if not for the same, the Maruti car which was coming in the opposite direction could not have hit the vehicle and caused the accident and therefore it was pleaded that there was contributory negligence. The Tribunal after examining the documents and the evidence on record came to a conclusion that 70% of negligence was attributed to the driver of the car and 30% to the rider of the motorcycle. 7. The Tribunal after examining the documents and the evidence on record came to a conclusion that 70% of negligence was attributed to the driver of the car and 30% to the rider of the motorcycle. 7. The Insurance Company is before this Court in MFA No.23388/2012 contending the though contributory negligence was attributed at 30% to the rider of the vehicle and the Tribunal while dealing with MVC No.1932/2010 having awarded a compensation of Rs.3,01,000/- has deducted contributory negligence at the rate of 30% and as such, directed to pay Rs.2,10,700/-. The Tribunal has not deducted 30% from the compensation awarded in MVC No.459/2010, as regards the pillion rider. 8. Sri. C. V. Angadi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that both the rider and the pillion rider were to be treated on parity with each other and 30% amount towards negligence ought to have been deducted from the amount awarded in MVC No.459/2010 also. 9. Per contra, Sri. Santosh S. Hattikatagi, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the negligence, if any is attributed only to the rider. The same cannot be extended to the pillion rider and as such, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 30% on account of contributory negligence only for the rider and not for the pillion rider. 10. The only ground on which the Insurance Company has approached this Court is as regards parity between the rider and the pillion rider. I am of the considered opinion that the there cannot be any parity between the rider and the pillion rider. The contributory negligence cannot be attributed to both rider and pillion riders and the pillion rider cannot be said to be negligent in any manner whatsoever. At the most the allegation of negligence is only against the rider and as such, the order of the Tribunal deducting 30% on account of contributory negligence on the part of the rider in MVC No.1932/2010 is just and proper there could not have been any deduction on account of the contributory negligence insofar as pillion rider is concerned in MVC No.459/2010 and as such, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. 11. As regards the enhancement of compensation, the injuries suffered by the appellants are as under: MFA No.24454/2012 (MVC No.459/2010) Sl. 11. As regards the enhancement of compensation, the injuries suffered by the appellants are as under: MFA No.24454/2012 (MVC No.459/2010) Sl. No. Injury Physical Disability for the limb Physical Disability for the whole body 1 Multiple fracture of right femur lower end (lateral condayle) and injuries all over the body 40% 10% MFA No.24455/2012 (MVC No.1932/2010) Sl. No. Injury Physical Disability for the limb Physical Disability for the whole body 1 Fracture of metatarsal and dorsal and right toe with cut lacerated wound over toes part, compound fracture of middle part of right femur and abrasion over right leg and right forearm and other multiple injuries all over the body 50% 15% 12. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads: MVC No.459/2010 Sl. No. Heads of accounts Rupees(Rs.) 1. Injury pain and agony 30,000.00 2. Medical expenses 28,000.00 3. Nursing, attendant charges Conveyance and extra nourishment 15,000.00 4. Loss of earning during treatment 10,000.00 5. Loss of future earning 81,000.00 6. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 25,000.00 Total 1,89,000.00 MVC No.1932/2010 Sl.No. Heads of accounts Rupees(Rs.) 1. Injury pain and agony 50,000.00 2. Medical expenses 66,000.00 3. Nursing, attendant charges Conveyance and extra nourishment 15,000.00 4. Loss of earning during treatment 15,000.00 5. Loss of future earning 1,15,000.00 6. Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 40,000.00 Total 3,01,000.00 13. The appellants have preferred the present appeals seeking for enhancement of compensation contending that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meager, insufficient, contrary to applicable guidelines. The compensation awarded under the different heads of account does not take into account the gravity and severity of the injuries suffered by the appellants The appellants are therefore entitled for higher compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct. All the aspects that are required to be considered have been so considered by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded as compensation is more than sufficient and there are no further amounts which are required to be awarded and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 15. Heard Sri. Santosh S. Hattikatagi for Sri. Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.C. V. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company and perused the papers. MFA No.24454/2012 (MVC No.459/2010) 16. 15. Heard Sri. Santosh S. Hattikatagi for Sri. Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.C. V. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company and perused the papers. MFA No.24454/2012 (MVC No.459/2010) 16. Physical DISABILITY A perusal of all the documents indicates that the appellant has sustained multiple fracture of right femur lower end (lateral condayle) and injuries all over the body, which are grievous as per the wound certificate as also the deposition of treating doctor. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Khanapur Government Hospital and then to District Hospital, Belagavi for treatment, where he was treated from 16.10.2008 to 11.11.2008 (25 days). He was operated and implants were fixed then discharged. After 3-4 months, the said operation was found to have failed since the bones had not united properly and his body was not responding to the implants. Hence he was once again admitted to Al- Ameen Hospital at Bangalore for further treatment on 17.03.2009, where another operation for reconstruction of Supra Condylar Respondent was conducted. During this time he was hospitalized from 15.06.2009 to 20.06.2009 (5 days). The appellant is said to have suffered 40% physical disability as regards the limb where the injury has occurred and it is opined that the appellant has in all suffered whole body disability of 40%. The Tribunal has not taken into account the said factor and has in fact taken into consideration the disability to be 10% for the whole body. I am of the considered view that taking into consideration the injury which has been suffered being grievous in nature at a minimum the certification of the doctor ought to have been taken into consideration when there is no contra evidence available on record to indicate the disability to be lower than that certified by the treating doctor. Hence, having given my anxious consideration to the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has suffered 13% of physical disability vis- -vis the whole body. 17. Multiplier: The appellant is aged about 20 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the relevant multiplier applicable to the appellant would be 18 in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs, Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 18. Income The appellant has not produced any documents relating to his income nor established the same. Therefore, the relevant multiplier applicable to the appellant would be 18 in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs, Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 18. Income The appellant has not produced any documents relating to his income nor established the same. Therefore, in terms of notional income fixed for this purpose by the Lok-Adalath for the year 2010, an income of Rs. 4,250/- per month would have to be taken into consideration. In view of the above, calculation of loss of earnings would be: Rs.4250x12x18 x 13/100 = Rs.1,19,340/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on this head of account is Rs.81,000/-. Hence, the compensation on this head of account stands enhanced by Rs.1,19,340/-. 19. Pain AND SUFFERING: The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards injury, pain and agony. Considering that there was two operations, which was conducted and implants were fixed on two occasions, I am of the opinion that the said amount is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- . 20. Medical EXPENSES: The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.28.000/- on account of medical expenses which is awarded as per the prescriptions and invoices produced by the appellant and does not require interference. 21. Conveyance, NOURISHMENT & FOOD, ETC. The petitioner having been treated firstly in Belagavi and thereafter at Bengaluru, it not being in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Belagavi, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded on account of Nursing, attendant charges, conveyance and extra nourishment is at the lower end and same is enhanced to Rs.24,000/-. 22. Loss OF EARNINGS DURING THE LAID-UP PERIOD The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings during the laid-up period. Considering that the accident occurred on 16.08.2008, he was hospitalized until 11.11.2008 at Belagavi and thereafter his hospitalization continued and would require further rest until at least a period of three months, thus the petitioner would have to be compensated for loss of earning for a period of five months at the rate of Rs.4,250/- per month which comes to Rs.21,250/-. 23. Loss OF AMENITIES & FUTURE UNHAPPINESS Towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. 23. Loss OF AMENITIES & FUTURE UNHAPPINESS Towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. As the appellant has lost out on the aspects of a normal life due to the injury sustained, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. MFA No.24455/2012 (MVC NO.1932/2010) 24. Physical DISABILITY A perusal of the documents indicates that appellant in this case i.e., the rider of the vehicle has has sustained fracture of metatarsal and dorsal and right toe with cut lacerated wound over toes part, compound fracture of middle part of right femur and abrasion over right leg and right forearm and other multiple injuries all over the body. He was admitted to District Hospital, Belagavi from 16.10.2008 to 15.11.2008. Later, once again from 17.09.2009 to 21.02.2009, where he was operated upon and implants were fixed. He was discharged thereafter. The operation was found to have failed and the bones had not united properly. Hence he was treated at Swasthiyog Pratishthan Miraj from 23.02.2009 to 07.03.2009 and again from 06.04.2009 to 08.04.2009 and thereafter from 26.06.2009 to 08.07.2009 when the implants removed. Thus in all he was treated as inpatient for 57 days. The treating doctor had deposed that there was 10% disability due to one inch shortening of the right leg, 35% disability in the right knee joint and 5% disability due to amputation of the right great toe. Thus, the doctor opined that there is 50% physical disability in respect of the right lower limb. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the disability to be 15% for the whole body. Considering that the treating doctor has deposed 50% disability to the right lower limb, I am of the considered opinion that 1/3rd has to be taken into consideration to the whole body, which comes to 16%. 25. Multiplier: The appellant was aged about 36 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the relevant multiplier applicable to the appellant would be 17 in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs, Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 26. Income The appellant has not produced any documents relating to his income nor established the same. Therefore, the relevant multiplier applicable to the appellant would be 17 in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs, Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 26. Income The appellant has not produced any documents relating to his income nor established the same. Therefore, in terms of notional income fixed for this purpose by the Lok-Adalath for the year 2010, an income of Rs. 4,250/- per month would have to be taken into consideration. In view of the above, calculation of loss of future earnings would be: Rs.4250x12x17 x 16/100 = Rs.1,38 ,720/- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on this head of account is Rs.1,15,000/-. Hence, the compensation on this head of account stands enhanced by Rs.1,38,720/- . 27. Loss OF EARNINGS DURING THE LAID-UP PERIOD The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings during the laid-up period. Considering that the appellant was treated from 16.08.2008 to 08.07.2009, i.e., for nearly 9 months, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation towards loss of earning during 9 months has to be awarded at the rate of Rs.4,250 x 9 = Rs.38,250/-. Rest of the compensation which has been awarded by the Tribunal being just and proper is not required to be interfered with. 28. Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is as under: MFA No.24454/2012 (MVC No.459/2010) Sl. No Heads of account Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Enhanced compensation 1 Pain and sufferings 30,000.00 50,000.00 20,000.00 2 Medical expenses 28,000.00 28000.00 00 3 Nursing, attendant charges, Conveyance and extra nourishment 15,000.00 24,000.00 9,000.00 4 Loss of earnings during the laid-up period 10,000.00 21,250.00 11,250.00 5 Loss of future earning 81,000.00 1,19,340.00 38,340.00 7 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 25,000.00 35,000.00 10,000.00 Total 1,89,000.00 2,77,590.00 88,590.00 MFA No.24455/2012 (MVC No.1932/2010) Sl. No Heads of account Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Enhanced compensation 1 Pain and sufferings 50,000.00 50,000.00 00 2 Medical expenses 66,000.00 66,000.00 00 3 Nursing, attendant charges, Conveyance and extra nourishment 15,000.00 15,000.00 00 4 Loss of earnings during the laid-up period 15,000.00 38,250.00 23,250.00 5 Loss of future earning 1,15,000.00 1,38,720.00 23,720.00 7 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 40,000.00 40,000.00 00 Total 3,01,000.00 3,47,970.00 46,970.00 29. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.23388/2012 is dismissed. ii. MFA Nos.24454/2012 and 24455/2012 are partly allowed. iii. The judgment and award dated 08.02.2012 passed by the Fast Track-III & Addl. MACT, Belagavi, in MVC Nos.459/2010 and 1932/2010 is hereby modified. iv. The appellant in MFA No.24454/2012 (MVC NO.459/2010) is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.88,590/- with interest @ 6.% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. v. The appellant in MFA No.24455/2012 is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.46,970/- with interest @ 6.% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation excluding a period of 127 days being the delay in filing the above appeal towards which the appellant would not be entitled for interest in terms of order of this Court dated 30.06.2014. Sri. C. V. Angadi submits that there are certain amounts which have been deposited before this Court in MFA No.23388/2012. Registry is directed to transfer the same to the Tribunal.