JUDGMENT S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. - These two appeals arise from the judgment and award dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Gokak in M.V.C. No.877/2017. 2. M.F.A.No.101230/2019 has been filed by the insurer challenging the impugned judgment and award on the ground of liability and quantum while M.F.A.No.100349/2019 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case are, on 29.01.2017, claimant Satish Shetty along with his friend Harshanandan Shetty was waiting on Chachadi cross road, for a transport to reach his village Yaragatti. At about 1.00 a.m., a Volkswagen Vento car bearing registration No.KA-56/M-3339 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. As a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately he was shifted to Dr.R.B.Patagundi's Hospital wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. His left leg was amputed and he was discharged from the said hospital on 08.02.2017 and on advice, he was later shifted to Dr. N.R. Acharya Hospital, Koteswar for further treatment. In the accident, claimant has suffered the following injuries: 1) comminuted fracture shaft femur M/3 right side 2) Open type 3C comminuted fracture tibia with segmental fracture right leg 3) Crushed degloved wound on right leg exposing fracture fragments and muscles, vitals with loss of skin on leg 4) Crushed degloved contaminated wound from knee to toe with loss of complete skin posterior tibula and artery injury 5) Fracture radius and ulna L/3 right FA with haeontionon forearm 6) 6) comminuted fracture 1st MC and fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th MC of right hand 4. Claimant has filed M.V.C.No.877/2017 before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with 21% interest p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal, in all, has awarded the compensation of Rs.23,02,085/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 5. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the accident in question had taken place in the middle of the road at midnight. According to him, the claimant who was in a hurry to reach his village, appears to have come in the middle of the road to stop the oncoming vehicle and resultantly, the accident had occurred. Therefore, claimant had also contributed to the accident. According to him, the claimant who was in a hurry to reach his village, appears to have come in the middle of the road to stop the oncoming vehicle and resultantly, the accident had occurred. Therefore, claimant had also contributed to the accident. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the permanent disability to the whole body of claimant at 80% and thereby excessive compensation has been awarded to the claimant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that neither the insurer nor the owner of the vehicle have pleaded before the Tribunal about the contributory negligence. He also submitted that no evidence was led by the contesting respondents to establish the contributory negligence of the claimant. He further submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- p.m. which is on the lower side and the Tribunal has also not considered the future prospects of the claimant having regard to the percentage of permanent disability suffered by him. In this context, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2811-2812/2020 in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. He prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both the parties and also perused the material evidence available on record. 8. The owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer have filed separate statement of objections before the Tribunal. They have not raised any contention with regard to contributory negligence by the claimant. Further, no evidence was led by them before the Tribunal to prove the contributory negligence of claimant. Admittedly, charge sheet has been filed by the police as against the driver of the offending vehicle. In the absence of any pleading and evidence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle alone had caused the accident in question. 9. The Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m. The accident is of the year 2017. Claimant was working as cashier/Barman. In the absence of any proof of income, this Court has consistently considered the notional income for the accidents of the year 2017 at Rs.10,250/-p.m. The doctor who treated the claimant has been examined as PW-2 and he has spoken about the physical disability suffered by the claimant. Claimant was working as cashier/Barman. In the absence of any proof of income, this Court has consistently considered the notional income for the accidents of the year 2017 at Rs.10,250/-p.m. The doctor who treated the claimant has been examined as PW-2 and he has spoken about the physical disability suffered by the claimant. He has also spoken in detail about the injuries suffered and the prolonged treatment undergone by the claimant. The claimant has suffered fracture injuries on both his legs and also to his right upper limb. Claimant's right leg has been amputed. According to the doctor PW-2, claimant has suffered total disability to whole body at 100%. The Tribunal has considered the disability to the whole body at 80%. We are of the considered view that having regard to the evidence of PW-2 and the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant, Tribunal was not justified in assessing permanent physical disability to the whole body at 80% and we hold disability at 100%. 10. Following the judgment of the Apex Court in Erudhaya Priya's case (supra), 25% income is required to be added to the claimant's income towards future prospects of the claimant. Claimant was aged about 43 years at the time of accident and the applicable multiplier would be 14. Therefore, loss of future earning capacity would work out as follows: Rs.10,250 + 2,563 (25% of 10,250) = 12,813/- Rs.12,813 x 12 x 14 x 100% = 21,52,584/- Accordingly, claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.21,52,584/- towards loss of future dependency. 11. Towards loss of income during laid up period, claimant is not entitled for any separate compensation because compensation is calculated by considering disability at 100% from the date of accident. 12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, medical expenses and traveling and incidental expenses remain unaltered. Claimant is not entitled for separate compensation towards food and nourishment. 13. There is no evidence with regard to future treatment that may be required by the claimant. PW-2 doctor has not spoken about any expense with regard to future medical treatment and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under this head. However, claimant is entitled for loss of amenities and we therefore award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the total compensation as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. However, claimant is entitled for loss of amenities and we therefore award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the total compensation as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Towards pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- 2. Towards medical bills Rs.5,43,885/- 3. Towards loss of future earning capacity Rs.21,52,584/- 4. Towards loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- 5. Towards traveling and incidental expenses Rs.75,000/- Total Rs.30,71,469/- Less: compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.3,45,000/- Enhanced compensation Rs.7,69,384/- 14. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the insurer in M.F.A.No.101230/2019 is dismissed; (ii) The appeal filed by the claimant in M.F.A. No.100349/2019 is allowed in part holding that claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.7,69,384/- with interest 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization; (iii) The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. In view of disposal of these appeals, pending Interlocutory Application does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same shall stand disposed of. No costs.