JUDGMENT M.I.Arun, J. - This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.06.2015 passed in MVC.No.6071/2012 by the XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge & Member, MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-15). 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.07.2012 at about 11 p.m., the claimant was proceedings on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-09-V-6306 on Kanakapura main road from south to north. When he reached JBS junction, BSK II stage, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-25-9049 came in a high speed and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Because of which, the claimant suffered severe injuries all over the body and sustained fracture of left medial condyle, left ankle compound fracture medial malleolus, fracture of shaft right femur and lacerated wound. The claimant got admitted as an inpatient for five times in Deepak Hospital, Jaideva Hospital, Meenakshi ENT hospital and Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, totally for a period of 55 days. His whole body disability is of 75% which is inclusive of neurological as well as orthopedic disability. He was earning a salary of Rs.9,750/-. He was aged 24 years at the time of accident. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest. 3. On service of notice, both the respondents before the Tribunal i.e., the owner of the lorry and the insurance company appeared and filed their objections. The owner of the lorry admitted the ownership over the lorry involved in the accident and the fact that it was insured with the insurance company. He denied the negligent act on the part of the lorry driver and contended that the accident took place due to fault of the claimant alone. On the said ground, he sought for dismissal of the case against him. The insurance company admitted the policy but contended that lorry driver did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the class of vehicle involved in the accident. On the said ground, it sought for dismissal of the claim of the claimant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. 5. The claimant in order to prove his case, examined his mother as PW.1 and four other witnesses including three doctors. On the said ground, it sought for dismissal of the claim of the claimant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter, recorded the evidence. 5. The claimant in order to prove his case, examined his mother as PW.1 and four other witnesses including three doctors. The claimant filed claim petition through his mother as he is handicapped and cannot speak. He got marked Exs.P1 to P27. The respondents have not let in any evidence and have not got any documents marked. 6. The Claims Tribunal by impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver bearing registration No.KA-25-9049 as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and suffered a total body disability of 75%. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.29,48,000/- along with the interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the amount in its entirety. The said compensation is awarded under the following heads: dvsv Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 134 (c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 232 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 were have not been complied with and on the said grounds, petition ought not to have been entertained. He further contends, no grounds have been made out by the claimant for being represented by his guardian. He further contends that IMV report shows damage to front portion of the motor cycle whereas the allegation is that the lorry hit the motor cycle from the rear side, thereby he questions the manner of accident. He has also contended that the police records like spot mahazar are not true and correct and the police report themselves does not constitute the necessary proof and there has been no independent witnesses let in by the claimant to prove the same. He contends that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant. He also contends that the compensation granted is on the higher side. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the judgment passed by the claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. He contends that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant. He also contends that the compensation granted is on the higher side. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the judgment passed by the claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is seen from the records that the claimant has produced his salary certificate to prove his income. Copy of FIR along with complaint, spot sketch, spot mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet have been produced to prove that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and has produced wound certificates, discharge summary, medical bills, lab reports and other documents issued by the hospitals in which he took treatment to his injuries. He has also examined three doctors to prove his injuries and the permanent disability sustained by him. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses who have spoken on behalf of the claimant. 10. On the contrary, the insurance company and lorry owner have not examined any witnesses on their behalf nor they have marked any documents. 11. For the said reasons, the Tribunal based on the preponderance and probabilities has come to the conclusion that the claimant has indeed was earning a sum of Rs.9,750/- per month, has suffered total bodily disability of 75% and has incurred the expenses as claimed by him. Because of it a total compensation of Rs29,48,000/- is awarded to him. 12. The Insurance Company has not shown any cause as to why the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in terms of compensation being awarded to the claimant is to be reduced. The particulars under the Provisions of Section 134(c) and 158(6) and Rule 232 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules have been made available. Delay in the same has not fatal to the claim petition. The IMV report also speaks about the damage to the portion of the rear of motor cycle. The major damage to the front portion of the motor cycle alone cannot be a ground for holding that the accident did not take place as alleged. Moresoever, the Insurance Company or the owner of the lorry have not let in any evidence. The IMV report also speaks about the damage to the portion of the rear of motor cycle. The major damage to the front portion of the motor cycle alone cannot be a ground for holding that the accident did not take place as alleged. Moresoever, the Insurance Company or the owner of the lorry have not let in any evidence. It is stated that the claimant being not able to speak is represented by natural guardian who is his mother. There is nothing erroneous in that. 13. As per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in JITENDRA KHIMSHANKAR TRIVEDI Vs. KASAM DAUD KUMBHAR, (2015) 4 SCC 237 in paragraph 14, it has been held as under: 14. As against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not preferred any appeal and even though the claimants have then prayed for compensation of Rs.2,96,480, for doing complete justice to the parties, excercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to award enhanced compensation of Rs.6,47,000 to the claimants. 14. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.29,48,000/- as against the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- sought by the claimant. The same is done for cogent reasons. As per the decision of the Hon ble Court referred above, as awarded amount is justified, we hereby sustain the award of Rs.29,48,000/- by the Tribunal. 15. We do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.