JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 27.6.2015 passed by the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in MVC 6573/2013. 2. Brief facts of the case: On 15.7.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. when the claimant was standing by the side of the road on Ring Road Junction, Umarban Layout, infront of Old Wood Shop near K.S.Layout Junction, Bangalore, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HN- 2649 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and caused accident. As a result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW-1, and Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy as PW-2, and submitted 17 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.20,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant as per wound certificate has sustained left ankle joint dislocation and bimalleolar fracture left ankle. PW-2, has deposed that the claimant has suffered 20% disability. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 3 days. The Tribunal on the ground that the PW-2 is not the treating doctor has not assessed the disability and has not granted any compensation under the heads 'loss of future income' and 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant has not examined the treating doctor and PW-2 is the doctor who has issued only the disability certificate. The claimant has not produced any documents to establish he has taken treatment as inpatient. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. Further, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. 6. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. Further, considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 15.7.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 7. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained left ankle joint dislocation and bimalleolar fracture left ankle. The claimant has examined PW-2, who has issued disability certificate. In his evidence, PW-2 has deposed as follows: '4. I submit that evaluation of permanent physical impairment in the left lower limb revealed: Mobility component Loss of motion-ankle/foot Dorsi flexion/plantar flexion-30degree loss=40% Inversion/eversion - 20 degree loss=40% Total mobility component-12% Stability component Climbing stairs 02% Standing on affected leg 02% Sitting crosslegged-02% Total stability component 05% Extra points Pain mild 02% Deformity in functional position 02% Total extra points 04% Permanent physical impairment 20%' 8. Even though PW-2 is the treating doctor, he is expert in the field. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of PW-2 and the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the whole body disability can be taken at 8%. With regard to income of the claimant, since the claimant has not produced any documents to establish his income, in catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2013, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, income of the claimant is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. The claimant is aged about 19 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18. Therefore, the loss of future income works out to Rs.1,38,240/- (8000 x 12 x 18 x 8%). 9. Considering the disability stated by the doctor and nature of injuries and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant has to undergo in his life, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'. 10. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. 9. Considering the disability stated by the doctor and nature of injuries and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant has to undergo in his life, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'. 10. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified. The claimant is entitled to receive the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 20,000 20,000 Loss of future income 0 138,240 Loss of amenities 0 20,000 Incidental expenses 500 500 Total 20,500 178,740 11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit, with the learned Tribunal, the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released forthwith to the claimant by the learned Tribunal after verifying his identity. No order as to costs.