JUDGMENT : M.G.S. Kamal, J. 1. MFA No. 7192/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company, whereas MFA No. 7512/2018 has been filed by the claimant aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 4/7/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since both these appeals preferred under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) arise out of the same accident as well as the same Judgment passed by the Tribunal, they are heard together and being decided by this common Judgment. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 20/11/2016 at about 3.30 p.m., the claimant was riding a motor-cycle bearing registration NO. KA-51-EP-2604 on Murandahalli cross, Kolar-Srinivaspur Main Road. At that time, Eicher Lorry bearing No. KA-07-A-6906 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor-cycle ridden by claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that the claimant spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc., and that he was treated as inpatient for seven days. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It was also pleaded that prior to the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and was working as Agriculturist-cum-Milk Vendor and was earning Rs. 30,000.00 p.m. and that due to the accident, he is not able to walk, resulting in loss of earning. Thus, the claimant sought for compensation of Rs. 60,00,000.00 along with interest. 4. On service of notice, Respondent No. 1 remained exparte and Respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement. The Respondent No. 2 admitted having issued the policy in favour of Respondent No. 1. The other averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that liability to indemnify the insured was subject to the driver holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant. It was also pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant. It was also pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. 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 PW-1 and one Dr. Krishna Prasad has been examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. On behalf of the respondents, one witness by name Pradeep.D.S. was examined as RW.1 and a document, viz., Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.R1. 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 lorry 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. 32,51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and directed the Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal committed error in not attributing negligence on the part of the claimant and that the claimant was equally negligent in causing the accident. 7. Secondly, it is submitted that though the doctor P.W.2 has assessed the disability of the claimant at 41%, the Tribunal has erred in assessing the whole body disability at 70% without any basis. 8. Thirdly, the Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation under the head of cost and maintenance of artificial limb based on Ex.P21 which is only a artificial limb estimation certificate and that the claimant had not produced any documentary evidence with regard to purchase of the artificial limb. Fourthly, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under the head 'future surgery' as the right lower limb of the claimant was amputated and no further surgery is required. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the claimant. That the claimant was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 per month working as Agriculturist-cum-Milk Vendor, but the Tribunal erred in taking notional income at Rs. 9,000.00 per month. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the claimant. That the claimant was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 per month working as Agriculturist-cum-Milk Vendor, but the Tribunal erred in taking notional income at Rs. 9,000.00 per month. It is further submitted that PW.2, the doctor has stated in his evidence that due to amputation below knee, claimant has suffered permanent disability of 82% to the lower limb and whole body disability at 41%. That due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and fracture. He was treated as inpatient for a period of seven days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he is not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other heads are on the lower side. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 735 . Hence, he has sought for allowing his appeal. 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 11. Though the Insurance Company has alleged that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company in this regard. It is pertinent to note that no eye-witness has been examined to testify with regard to the manner of accident as alleged by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal taking into consideration the material made available, has rightly come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 12. Though the claimant has claimed to have had monthly income of Rs. 30,000.00 from his Agriculture-cum-Milk Vending business, however, no satisfactory evidence has been adduced. Therefore, the notional income of Rs. 9,000.00 assessed by the Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of the case is maintained as the same is just and reasonable. 13. PW-2, the doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 82% to the lower limb and whole body disability of 41%. Therefore, the notional income of Rs. 9,000.00 assessed by the Tribunal under the facts and circumstances of the case is maintained as the same is just and reasonable. 13. PW-2, the doctor has deposed that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 82% to the lower limb and whole body disability of 41%. However, during the cross-examination, P.W.2 has deposed that the disability will reduce after ligament tear is reconstructed. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000.00 towards future surgery based on the advice of P.W.2 for reconstruction of ligament tear and removal of implant which will reduce the disability. Therefore, it is appropriate to assess the disability at 41% as assessed by the P.W.2 instead of 70%. In sofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the clamants upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Syed Sadiq supra regarding functional disability, the same is misplaced as the aforesaid decision was rendered under different facts and circumstances of the case therein, where as, in the instant case, P.W.2 had deposed that the disability will reduce after the ligament tear is reconstructed. Therefore, the 'loss of future income' awarded at Rs. 11,34,000.00 by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs. 6,64,200.00 (Rs. 9,000.00 - 12 - 15 - 40%). 14. Though the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,00,000.00 as cost and maintenance of artificial limb, on the basis of Ex.P21 which is an estimation certificate, the claimant has neither examined the author of Ex.P21 nor has produced any evidence for having purchased artificial limb. P.W.2, during the cross-examination has deposed that an artificial limb starts from Rs. 15,000.00. Upon a suggestion made to the effect that ISO certified limb would cost Rs. 80,000.00, P.W.2 has pleaded ignorance. As such, the said amount awarded without any evidence cannot be sustained. We deem it appropriate under the facts of the case to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 towards cost and maintenance of artificial limb. 15. The compensation awarded under the heads 'pain and suffering', 'medical expenses', 'nourishment and attendant charges', 'conveyance charges', 'loss of amenities', 'future surgery' and 'litigation expenses' by the Tribunal remains unaltered. 16. We deem it appropriate under the facts of the case to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 towards cost and maintenance of artificial limb. 15. The compensation awarded under the heads 'pain and suffering', 'medical expenses', 'nourishment and attendant charges', 'conveyance charges', 'loss of amenities', 'future surgery' and 'litigation expenses' by the Tribunal remains unaltered. 16. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following compensation: Compensation under different Heads As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) As awarded by this Court (Rs.) Pain and sufferings 1,00,000-00 1,00,000-00 Medical expenses 13,41,671-00 13,41,671-00 Nourishment end attendant charges 15,000-00 15,000-00 Conveyance charges 10,000-00 10,000-00 Loss of amenities 35,000-00 35,000-00 Future Loss of Income 11,34,000-00 6,64,200-00 Cost and maintenance of artificial limb 4,00,000-00 1,00,000-00 Future surgery 2,00,000-00 2,00,000-00 Litigation expenses 15,000-00 15,000-00 Total 32,50,671-00 24,80,871-00 17. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 24,80,871/-. Needless to stats that the aforesaid total amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 19. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. 20. Accordingly, MFA No. 7192/2018 filed by the Insurance company is allowed in part. Whereas, MFA No. 7512/2018 filed by the claimant is dismissed.