JUDGMENT : Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. 1. Though this appeal is listed today for orders, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. at Bengaluru (SCCH-09) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C. No. 6705/2011 in terms of the judgment and award dated 19.11.2013. Parties will henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claim petition disclosed that on 13.07.2011, the claimant was traveling in a bus bearing Registration No. KA-18-F-393 (henceforth referred to as 'the offending vehicle') which dashed against a parked lorry bearing Registration No. MH-06-AQ-7911 at about 11.45 p.m., near Attibele Check post. The claimant was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru where he underwent treatment. The claimant alleged negligence on behalf of the offending vehicle and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. The claim petition was contested by the insurer of the offending vehicle which disputed the averments of the claim petition. It contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid license. It also claimed that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as claimant has failed to array the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing Registration No. MH-06-AQ-7911. The owner of the offending vehicle also contested the claim petition alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and alleged it was parked in the middle of the road without switching on the hazard lights. 5. Based on these rival contentions, the Tribunal framed issues and set down the case for trial. The claimant was examined as PW. 1 and the Doctor was examined as PW. 2 and they marked documents as Exs. P1 to P14. The owner/insurer of the offending vehicle did not led evidence and did not mark any documents. 6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of the offending vehicle and the lorry and fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle at 80% and at 20% in respect of the driver of the lorry. 6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of the offending vehicle and the lorry and fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle at 80% and at 20% in respect of the driver of the lorry. Insofar as claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed from Ex. P6 (Wound Certificate) that the claimant had suffered Type III open fracture of the left proximal tibia and fibula. The Tribunal also noticed discharge summary (Ex. P7) issued by Hosmat Hospital which showed that the claimant had undergone surgery on 14.07.2011 for wound debridement with external fixator of left tibia and repair of posterior tibia artery and vein. He also went another surgery for wound debridement and SSG of left tibia on 18.07.2011. He also underwent skin grafting and later, on 20.12.2011, he underwent a surgery for ilizarov fixator for left tibia. The Tribunal noticed the evidence of PW. 2 who deposed that the claimant had undergone multiple surgeries and fracture had got united. PW. 2 stated that the claimant suffered persistent foot drop with diminished sensation in the left ankle and foot. He deposed that the disability to the left lower limb was 75% while disability to the whole body at 25%. 7. The Tribunal considered the notional income of the claimant at a sum of Rs. 5,250/- per month and awarded the following compensation: Sl. No. Heads under which compensation awarded Amount in Rupees 1 For pain and suffering 70,000/- 2 For diet, conveyance and attendant charges 3,000/- 3 For loss of income during laid up period and rest for three months 15,750/- 4 For loss of amenities and unhappiness in life 60,000/- 5 For discomfort and mental stress in life 6,000/- 6 For future medical expenses 1,00,000/- 7 For Medical expenses 3,51,370/- Total 6,06,120/- 8. Insofar as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal directed the owner and insurer of offending vehicle to pay 80% of the compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the appeal. Learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the insurer of the lorry. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the appeal. Learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the insurer of the lorry. He also contended that the Tribunal considered the notional income at Rs. 5,250/- per month while in similar circumstances this Court has considered the notional income at Rs. 6,500/- per month. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards 'loss of income due to disability' as assessed by the Tribunal and it committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of PW. 2 on the ground that he was not the doctor who treated the claimant. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the insurer contended that the Tribunal could not have assessed the disability having regard to the fact that PW. 2 was not a doctor who treated the claimant. Learned Counsel also contended that the driver of the lorry had dangerously parked the lorry without switching on the hazard lights and therefore, had contributed to the accident. Consequently, the Tribunal was right in fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. In reply, learned Counsel for the claimant contended that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2015 SC 2261 , the claimant was entitled to pursue the claim against any one of the joint tort feasors. 11. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the claimant, in the case of a claim arising out of an accident due to the composite negligence of two or more vehicles, the claimant is entitled to prosecute his claim against any of the joint tort feasors or all of them. It is for that the joint tortfeasors to pay the entire compensation payable to the claimant and recover the proportionate compensation for the other joint tort feasors. Consequently, in the case of Khenyei (Supra), the claimant was entitled to recover the entire compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. It is for that the joint tortfeasors to pay the entire compensation payable to the claimant and recover the proportionate compensation for the other joint tort feasors. Consequently, in the case of Khenyei (Supra), the claimant was entitled to recover the entire compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, to this extent the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified and the claimant is entitled to recover the entire compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle who is entitled to recover 20% of the compensation that may be determined by this Court from the insurer of the lorry bearing No. MH-06-AQ-7911. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the claimant in similar circumstances, this Court has accepted the notional income at a sum of Rs. 6,500/- per month. Though PW. 2 was not the doctor who treated the claimant, yet he too who was a qualified medical practitioner and Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon who was part of the Orthopedic and Trauma Team since 2005. The PW. 2 has assessed the disability of the claimant at 25% to the whole body which cannot be disbelieved in light of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Similarly, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others' reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , compensation for fracture of weight bearing bones should be assessed at Rs. 40,000/- for each fracture and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal thus deserves to be marginally increases. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 6,06,120/- as compensation deserves to be enhanced as follows: Sl. No. Heads under which compensation awarded Amount in Rupees 1 For pain and suffering 80,000/- 2 For diet, conveyance and attendant charges 40,000/- 3 For loss of income during laid up period and rest for three months 25,500/- 4 For loss of amenities and unhappiness in life 1,00,000/- 5 Loss of income due to disability 1,75,500/- 6 For future medical expenses 1,00,000/- 7 For Medical expenses 3,51,370/- Total 8,72,370/- 12. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed-in-part and the impugned Judgment and Award of the Tribunal in M.V.C. No. 6705/2011 is modified and the compensation awarded to the claimant is enhanced from Rs. 6,06,120/- to Rs. 8,72,370/-, which is payable by the insurer along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation with interest as stated above within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.