JUDGMENT : 1. 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 claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.04.2014 the claimant was proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA04 MC1576 and when they reached Katharigatta Village gate, Dandiganahalli Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, the driver of the car drove the same in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA54 H5665. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained injuries and was hospitalised. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he was working as a mason and also engaged in sheet centering work under a private building contractor and was earning Rs.24,000/- p.m. It was further pleaded that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, it was not possible for him to work. It is further submitted that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car which was owned by the respondent No.1 and was insured with respondent No.2. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. It was further pleaded that the accident was caused by the involvement of the two vehicles but the claimant has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The respondent No.2 remained absent and was proceeded exparte. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and another witness Indira (wife) as PW2 and Dr. Roshan Kumar as PW3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. Roshan Kumar as PW3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,55,289/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the amount awarded to the claimant on account of pain and agony as well as disability is on the lower side. It is further submitted that the claimant had remained inpatient for a period of 38 days and had received treatment approximately for 3 months. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated. It is further submitted that as a result of aforesaid accident, the claimant had sustained injury to the extent of 12.33% as stated by PW3 namely Dr.Roshan Kumar. However, the Tribunal, without assigning any reasons, has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant only at 10%. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the amount of compensation which has been awarded is just and proper and does not call for interference. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the claimant at the time of accident was aged 45 years and was employed as mason. He has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be fixed as per the guidelines issued by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2014, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.8,500/p.m. From the evidence of PW3, it is evident that the claimant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 12.33%. However, the same has been taken at 10%. There is no reason to disbelieve the expert opinion given by PW3 namely Dr.Roshan Kumar who has treated the claimant. Therefore, we round off the disability to 13% and if the age of the claimant is taken into consideration, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,85,640/- on account of loss of future earning capacity. There is no reason to disbelieve the expert opinion given by PW3 namely Dr.Roshan Kumar who has treated the claimant. Therefore, we round off the disability to 13% and if the age of the claimant is taken into consideration, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,85,640/- on account of loss of future earning capacity. The claimant has remained inpatient for a period of 38 days and thereafter, has received treatment. Therefore, it can be simply inferred that he was under treatment for 3 months and hence, he is entitled to Rs.25,500/-on account of loss of income during the period of treatment. The claimant, in addition, is entitled to Rs.16,689/-which has been incurred by him for his medical expenses. Since the claimant has suffered an injury namely fracture of right calcaneum, pain and swelling over right heel and contusion over cheek, we are inclined to enhance the sum awarded to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering to Rs.50,000/-. Since the appellant has remained inpatient for a period of 38 days, the amount under the head of food, special diet and nourishment is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. Similarly, the amount awarded towards attendant charges is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The Claims Tribunal has also not awarded any amount to the claimant on account of loss of amenities. As the claimant is limping as is evident from the evidence of PW3 who had also examined him after a period of one year, therefore, we are inclined to award Rs.40,000/-on account of loss of amenities. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation to the tune of Rs.3,72,829/-. Needless to state that the aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.