JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 23.1.2015 passed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH17) in MVC 1725/2013. 2. Brief facts of the case: On 5.7.2012 at about 8.45 a.m. when the claimant was proceeding by walk on the left side of the Rajagopalnagar main road, near Ganapathinagar Kapila wines, a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA02EY3471 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to him. As a result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to hospital. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW1, and other witness as PW2 and Dr.B.Ramesh as PW3, and submitted 15 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined one witness and produced 12 documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,46,650/with interest at 6% p.a. and fastened the liability on the owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA02EY3471. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellantclaimant has raised following contentions: Firstly, the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid licence as on the date of accident. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. [ AIR 2018 SC 592 ], even if the rider/driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Secondly, even though the claimant claims that he was working as lorry driver and earning Rs.15,000/-per month, but the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as merely as Rs.5,000/-p.m. Thirdly, as per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained pitting pedal oedema of the right lower limb, abraded wound on the right heel and tenderness of right lower limb. fracture of medial femoral condyle of right knee. PW3, doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 28% disability to particular limb and 14% to whole body. fracture of medial femoral condyle of right knee. PW3, doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 28% disability to particular limb and 14% to whole body. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head 'loss of amenities'. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended it is not in dispute that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Inspite of issuing notice to the owner of the motorcycle, he has not produced any licence, which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the owner of the motorcycle has contended that considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 7. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 5.7.2012 due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. RE: Liability 8. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. [ AIR 2018 SC 592 ], even though the rider/driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the above decision, this court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and later recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle. RE: Quantum 9. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But the same is not established by producing any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no other option, but to asses the income of the claimant notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by the Lok Adalath for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. But the same is not established by producing any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal is left with no other option, but to asses the income of the claimant notionally. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the Chart prepared by the Lok Adalath for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the Chart, for an accident of the year, 2007, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court enhances the claimant’s income from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. 10. The claimant is aged about 23 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18. His income is assessed at Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal considering the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, has rightly taken the disability to whole body at 8%. Therefore, the ‘loss of future income’ works out to Rs.1,20,960/(7,000 x 12 x 18 x 8%) and it is awarded as against Rs.86,400/awarded by the Tribunal. 11. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained pitting pedal oedema of the right lower limb, abraded wound on the right heel and tenderness of right lower limb. fracture of medial femoral condyle of right knee. PW3, doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 28% disability to particular limb and 14% to whole body. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 10 days. Considering the nature of injuries, disability stated by the doctor and an amount of discomfort and unhappiness, the claimant has to undergo in his life, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/-under the of 'loss of amenities'. 12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remains undisturbed. 13. 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 30,000 30,000 Medical expenses 5,250 5,250 Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 10,000 10,000 Loss of income during laid up period 15,000 15,000 Loss of future income 86,400 120,960 Loss of amenities 0 25,000 Total 146,650 206,210 14. 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 six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the motorcycle. The amount so deposited shall be released forthwith to the claimant by the learned Tribunal after verifying his identity.