JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 14.02.2013, passed in MVC No.5239/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 11.03.2011 at about 8.15 a.m., the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-EM-7325 towards Addihalli from Bindiganavile and when he reached near Kerekodi, at that time, an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-54-1380 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. 3. It was pleaded that the claimant was aged 38 years at the time of accident and he was an agriculturist by occupation and was supplying milk to the dairy and earning Rs.12,000/-p.m. Due to the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent residual physical disability and thereby lost his earning capacity. He has incurred huge amount for his treatment. Hence, the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-together with interest. 4. The respondent No.1, Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the policy in respect of the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident and that the liability, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was pleaded that the respondent No.2 had entrusted the offending vehicle to a person who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. As on the date of the accident, the said auto rickshaw had no valid permit and fitness certificate. Hence, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle has filed written statement denying the entire petition averments. He has pleaded that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle has filed written statement denying the entire petition averments. He has pleaded that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. As such, the claim of the claimant, if any, is liable to be answered by respondent No.1 by way of indemnifying respondent No.2 under the contract of the insurance policy. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.B.S.Jayaram was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P37. Respondents have not adduced any oral or documentary 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 offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,47,000/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation amount. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the appellant has suffered 3 major injuries and the doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 17.6% to the whole body, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 10% to the whole body which is on a lower side. Secondly, that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/-which is on a lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The point that arise for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation. 10. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The point that arise for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation. 10. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimant has sustained injuries due to the accident and was admitted to Unity Life Line Hospital, Bangalore and PW-2 has treated the claimant. On perusal of Ex.P6 -wound certificate, Ex.P7 and P8 -discharge summaries, Ex.P9 -X-ray films (6 in number), Ex.P32 to P34 -inpatient records, produced by the claimant, it is evident that the claimant has suffered following injuries in the accident: (1) Punctured wound present over the lateral aspect of lower end of left thigh with bleeding. X-ray left knee with femur showed -segmental fracture left femur mid 1/3rd. (2) Abrasion present over the right foot measuring 2½ x 1½ cms. The injury at Sl.No.(1) is described as grievous in nature in Ex.P6 -wound certificate. The claimant was an inpatient from 11.06.2011 to 16.06.2011 and also he was admitted in ICU under the supervision of orthopedic surgeon. He underwent the procedure of wound debridement and open reduction and internal fixation with locking compression plate and screw for comminuted fracture distal left femur with supracondylar and intracondylar extension under Spinal Anesthesia on 11.06.2011 and was discharged on 16.06.2011 with an advice to take medicines, limb elevation to continue knee brass and to review on OPD basis. The claimant was readmitted to the very same hospital for the second time on 25.08.2011 and was discharged on 29.08.2011. PW-2, Doctor has opined that the claimant has suffered physical disability of 53.4% to the left lower limb and 17.8% to the whole body and the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 10%, which is on a lower side. Keeping in view the injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court re-assess the permanent disability of the claimant at 15%. The claimant was aged 38 years at the time of accident. The claimant claims that the is an agriculturist and was also doing milk vending. Keeping in view the injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court re-assess the permanent disability of the claimant at 15%. The claimant was aged 38 years at the time of accident. The claimant claims that the is an agriculturist and was also doing milk vending. Claimant has produced copy of Record of Rights to show that he is an agriculturist and not produced any record to show that he was doing milk vending business. Admittedly, claimant has not produced any evidence with regard to his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The Tribunal has taken Rs.4,000/-as the monthly income of the claimant, which is on a lower side. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2011, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.6,500/-p.m. The claimant is aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘15’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,75,500/-(Rs.6,500*12*15*15%) on account of 'loss of future earnings'. Since the income of the claimant is enhanced to Rs.6,500/-per month, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.39,000/-(Rs.6,500*6 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/-towards pain and sufferings, which is on a lower side. Considering the nature of injuries, the same is enhanced to Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-towards loss of happiness and amenities, which is also on a lower side. In view of the injuries suffered by the claimant, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical and incidental expenses at Rs.1,70,000/-, is maintained. The claimant has examined the doctor PW-2, who has deposed that the claimant needs to undergo one more surgery for removal of the implant in the near future and requires about Rs.30,000/-for the same. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-under the head 'future medical expenses' which is on a lower side. This Court reassess the same to Rs.25,000/-. Thus the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,94,500/-. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 14.02.2013, is modified. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-under the head 'future medical expenses' which is on a lower side. This Court reassess the same to Rs.25,000/-. Thus the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,94,500/-. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 14.02.2013, is modified. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,94,500/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, as against Rs.3,47,000/-awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.