JUDGMENT : 1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Claims Tribunal’ for short). MFA No.201174/2019 is filed by the injured claimant in MVC No.269/2017 seeking for enhancement of compensation. And MFA No. 201660/2019 (in M.V.C. No.194/2017) is filed by the legal heirs of deceased Ramesh seeking for enhancement of the compensation against the award in MVC No.194/2017. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are that on 27.03.2017 the appellantNagaraj and one Ramesh were traveling on a HeroHonda motorcycle, bearing registration No.KA36/EH3403 on Lingasugur–Raichur road. At that time, the driver of the Maruti Omni van, bearing registration No.KA37/M2343 drove the same in rash and negligent manner, without showing any signal, suddenly took the said van towards left side and hit the motorcycle. As a result, rider and pillion rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained injuries. Both the injured were taken to RIMS Hospital Raichur. Ramesh, the rider of the motorcycle succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The pillion rider Nagaraj suffered permanent disability. MVC No.269/2017 is filed by the injured claimant Nagaraj seeking for compensation of Rs.85,00,000/. On receipt of notice, respondent No. 2insurer filed written statement denying the date, time and place of accident and also the involvement of the insured vehicle. It also denied the age, occupation and income of the claimant. It was further contended that there was violation of policy condition and hence it was not liable to pay any compensation. Based on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimant got himself examined as PW1 and marked documents namely, the FIR with complaint, spot panchanama, MVI report, charge sheet, wound certificate, discharge summary, disability certificate, medical bills and etc. The respondent examined one witness as RW1 and marked four documents as Ex.R1 to R4. Thereafter, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car and held respondents No.1 and 2 to pay the compensation to the claimant. It assessed the compensation payable to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.13,95,700/with interest at 6% p.a. Seeking for enhancement of compensation MFA No.201174/2019 is filed. 3. It assessed the compensation payable to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.13,95,700/with interest at 6% p.a. Seeking for enhancement of compensation MFA No.201174/2019 is filed. 3. Since, there is no challenge to the award by the respondent–Insurance Company, the only issue that arises for consideration is ‘whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?’. 4. Learned counsel Smt. Patil Shantabai Santhosh submitted that the claimant had suffered segmental fracture injury to both bones of right forearm, brachial plexus injury, Baci cervical fracture of right hip and fracture of shaft of right femur and other injuries all over the body, for which initially he was taken treatment in RIMS Hospital later on he was shifted to Suraksha hospital, Raichur wherein he has undergone 23 surgeries and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/. It was also submitted that the claimant had undergone surgery in Suraksha Hospital and implants were fixed with closed reduction and interlocking nail fixation with TENS nail for fracture of both bones of right forearm and PFN nailing for fracture shaft of right femur. The claimant had also undergone treatment for fracture of his spine. As per the evidence of PW3 Dr. Harish Murthy, the claimant has suffered the following disabilities. “The ROM of knee is around 070 degrees. Inability to bend forward and shortening of about ½ cm right lower limb. The ankle ROM flexion is around 015 degrees & Dorsi flexion is about 010 degrees. The inversion and Eversion are Reversion and are painful. Not able to climb the steps and to walk for a long distance. Not able to squat. Difficulty to walk without walking aid & at right forearm implants are still in situ. There is non union is present.” 5. It was also contended that the Claims Tribunal had considered the lower income of Rs.8,000/per month as against the claim of Rs.15,000/p.m. It was also submitted that the award under other heads was also on lower side. The counsel for respondentInsurance Company supported the award of Claims Tribunal and opposed any further enhancement. 6. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. From perusal of Ex.P9 to P205 it is seen that the claimant has suffered several fractures. As per the evidence of Dr. Harish MurthyPW3, the claimant is having permanent disability of 65% to whole body. 6. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. From perusal of Ex.P9 to P205 it is seen that the claimant has suffered several fractures. As per the evidence of Dr. Harish MurthyPW3, the claimant is having permanent disability of 65% to whole body. It is also seen that the claimant has obtained certificate from the Director of Empowerment of Differently Abled and Senior Citizens, Bengaluru, indicating that the disability suffered by him is to an extent of 75%. Considering the nature of disability suffered by the claimant, as stated by Dr.Harish Murthy – PW3, (extracted above), there would be difficulty for the claimant in doing mason work as prior to the accident. It would be reasonable to assess the functional disability and consequently loss of earning capacity at 60%. 8. The claimant has failed to lead any evidence regarding his monthly income. Therefore Rs.10,250/p.m. can be taken as the monthly income of the claimant as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for compensation towards loss of future earnings as follows: Rs.10,250 x 60% x 12 x 18 = Rs.13,28,400/. 9. Hence, Rs.13,28,400/is awarded to the claimant as against Rs.6,91,200/towards loss of future earning. Considering the number of fractures and duration of treatment, the compensation of Rs.60,000/awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side and is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/. The medical expenses of Rs.5,30,500/has been ordered to be reimbursed by the Claims Tribunal. The same does not call for any enhancement. 10. Since the claimant was required to take treatment at Bengaluru Hospital, the award of Rs.12,000/towards attendant charges (@ Rs.100/per day) is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.22,000/. The award of Rs.20,000/towards special diet etc., is just and proper and is sustained. Since, the monthly income of the claimant is taken at Rs.10,250/, the loss of income during the laid up period for four months is enhanced to Rs.41,000/and considering the number of fractures and disability, compensation of Rs.25,000/awarded towards loss of amenities is meager and is therefore enhanced to Rs.50,000/. In the absence of any specific evidence regarding the need and extent of future treatment, the award of Rs.25,000/towards future medical expenses does not call for any enhancement. In the absence of any specific evidence regarding the need and extent of future treatment, the award of Rs.25,000/towards future medical expenses does not call for any enhancement. In the result, the point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative and the claimant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.21,16,900/as follows: (Amount in Rs.) Pain and suffering 1,00,000 Medical expenses 5,30,500 Attendant charges 22,000 Nourishment and special diet 20,000 Loss of earning during the treatment period for 4 months at the rate of Rs. 10,250/ 41,000 Loss of future earning due to permanent partial disability caused at the rate of 60% to whole body 13,28,400 Loss of amenities 50,000 Future medical expenses 25,000 Total 21,16,900 11. The claimant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation. The proportion of deposit out of the total compensation as ordered by the Claims Tribunal is maintained. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Claims Tribunal is modified as above. MFA No.201660/2019 13. Brief facts of the case are already stated above in MFA No.201174/2019, hence we refrain from repeating the same. 14. This is an appeal filed for seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of MVC No.194/2017. The legal heirs of deceased Ramesh are seeking enhancement of compensation. Since, there is no challenge to the award by the respondent–Insurance Company, the only issue that arises for consideration is ‘whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?’ 15. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Sharanagowda V. Patil submitted that the Tribunal while determining the compensation, has taken the monthly income of the deceased Ramesh, a mason aged 22 years, at Rs.6,000/ p.m. even though it was Rs.18,000/p.m. It was also contended that the Claims Tribunal has not considered future prospects. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Sri. Sharanabasappa M. Patil supported the award and opposed any enhancement. 16. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. Though it is contended that the deceased Ramesh was earning Rs.18,000/p.m., no evidence is led to prove the monthly income. Since the accident occurred in 2017, the monthly income is to be taken at Rs.10,250/as per guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 17. Though it is contended that the deceased Ramesh was earning Rs.18,000/p.m., no evidence is led to prove the monthly income. Since the accident occurred in 2017, the monthly income is to be taken at Rs.10,250/as per guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 17. Since the deceased was aged about 22 years the multiplier applicable would be 18. And as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS’, ‘ AIR 2017 SC 5157 ’, 40% of the monthly income is required to be added towards future prospects. Since the deceased was a bachelor ½ of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Hence, the loss of dependency is recalculated as follows: Rs.10,250 + 40% (future prospects) = Rs.14,350/Rs.14,350 – ½ (personal expenses) = Rs.7,175/Therefore, loss of dependency = Rs.7,175/x 12 x 18 = Rs.15,49,800/. 18. Since, the claimants are the parents and minor sister of the deceased, they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.40,000/each towards loss of love and affection and filial consortium, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ORIENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,’ ‘2018 (18) SCC 130’. The total of the same would be Rs.1,20,000/. In addition, the claimants would also be entitled to a further sum of Rs.15,000/towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral expenses. In the result, the point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative and the claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.16,99,800/as follows: (Amount in Rs.) 19. The claimants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation. The proportion of sharing and deposit out of the total compensation amount will be as ordered by the Claims Tribunal. In the result MFA No.201660/2019 is allowed in part. Loss of dependency 15,49,800 Loss of love and affection 1,20,000 Loss of estate 15,000 Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses 15,000 Total 16,99,800 No order as to costs.