JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/owner in all the appeals. 2. These appeals are filed challenging the common judgment and award dated 27.03.2015 passed in MVC Nos. 1632/2013, 1634/2013, 1638/2013, 1639/2013, 1640/2013, 1641/2013 and 1642/2013, respectively, on the file of Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti at Saundatti ('Tribunal' for short). 3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that all the claimants were proceeding in ape rickshaw bearing registration No. KA-24/5670 towards Munavalli, at that time, a tempo trax bearing registration No. KA-25/A-8255 came from Munavalli side in a zig-zag manner and dashed against the said ape rickshaw , as a result, the claimants have sustained the injuries and they were shifted to the hospital, took treatment and spent the amount towards medical expenses and also suffered the permanent disability. Hence, the claimants are before the Tribunal. 4. To substantiate their claim, the claimants are examined themselves as P.Ws. 1 to 7 and also examined the Doctor as P.W. 8 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P51. On the other hand, the owner has been examined as R.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3. 5. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record granted the following compensation:- Sl.No. MVC No. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. 1632/2013 Rs.4,44,620/- 2. 1634/2013 Rs.1,94,400/- 3. 1638/2013 Rs.1,34,300/- 4. 1639/2013 Rs.1,60,900/- 5. 1640/2013 Rs.87,700/- 6. 1641/2013 Rs.1,10,500/- 7. 1642/2013 Rs.1,38,700/- Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation and also contended that no contributory negligence is taken when the two vehicles are involved in the accident. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company in her arguments vehemently contends that when two vehicles are involved in the accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence. There were 15 passengers travelling in the Goods Auto at the relevant point of time, though the carrying capacity is only one. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the cases are on higher side and exorbitant. There were 15 passengers travelling in the Goods Auto at the relevant point of time, though the carrying capacity is only one. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the cases are on higher side and exorbitant. Even on the head of loss of future earning capacity due to disability, the Tribunal added 5 to 10% of the income to the future income while calculating the loss of future income. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal having taken note of the nature of injuries as well as the disability assessed by the Doctor, awarded the just and reasonable compensation in all the cases and it does not require any interference of this Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not taking the contributory negligence as contended by the Insurance Company? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an exorbitant compensation in all the claim petitions? (iii) What order? Point No. (i): 9. The first and foremost contention of the Insurance Company is that the two vehicles are involved in the accident. When two vehicles are involved in the accident, there were more persons travelling in the vehicle, the Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence and the same has not been considered. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined before the Tribunal, only R.W. 1 has been examined and even the official of the Insurance Company also not examined and no document is placed before the Court. In the absence of cogent evidence, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. 11. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, the Tribunal while considering issue No. 1 that whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax, considered the material available on record, discussed in detail in paragraph Nos. 11. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, the Tribunal while considering issue No. 1 that whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax, considered the material available on record, discussed in detail in paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14, particularly considering the cross-examination made and also considering the document of Ex.P3 - Spot Panchanama and came to the conclusion that the Trax went on wrong direction and caused the accident. The Insurance Company did not challenge the investigation of the Police and report filed in terms of Ex.P6. Having considered the evidence of the claimants all of them in their evidence have categorically deposed that the accident is on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Trax. In the absence of any cogent evidence before the Court that an accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the other vehicle in which the claimants were travelling, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. In order to comes to a contributory negligence there must be an evidence before the Court and the right person to speak with regard to the negligence is concerned, the driver of the offending vehicle and he has not been examined before the Court and even not examined the Investigating Officer with regard to filing of the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. In the absence of these materials, the question of contributory negligence does not arise. Hence, I answer point No. (i) as 'negative'. Point No. (ii): In MFA No. 102091/2015: 12. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The claimant had suffered grievous injury of fracture to neck of the radius and one simple injury of tenderness in the lumbar area and the injured was aged about 18 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 18,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings, considering Rs. 15,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs. 3,000/- towards one simple injury, which is erroneous and the same is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-, which is just and reasonable. 13. With regard to medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 11,580/- was awarded based on the medical bills, towards attendant charges, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs. 3,000/- towards one simple injury, which is erroneous and the same is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-, which is just and reasonable. 13. With regard to medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 11,580/- was awarded based on the medical bills, towards attendant charges, a sum of Rs. 2,400/-, towards food and nutrition charges a sum of Rs. 3,600/-, towards transportation a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and towards loss of income during laid up period a sum of Rs. 16,200/- was awarded by the Tribunal, the same are just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 14. Towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the disability of 22% and also taken 30% of the income to the annual income. The very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. Having considered the nature of fracture to neck of the radius, though the Doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 22%, 1/3rd has to be taken, it comes to 8%. Having considered the income of Rs. 5,400/- per month and by applying the multiplier 18, it comes to Rs. 93,312/- (5400 x 12 x 18 x 8%) 15. In all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,62,092/- as against Rs. 4,44,620/- awarded by the Tribunal. In MFA No. 102092/2015: 16. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The claimant had suffered dislocation of right shoulder joint which is a grievous injury in nature and he was aged about 20 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 18,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings, considering Rs. 15,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs. 3,000/- towards one simple injury, which is erroneous and the same is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-, which is just and reasonable. 17. With regard to medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 14,386/- was awarded based on the medical bills, towards attendant charges, a sum of Rs. 2,400/-, towards food and nutrition charges a sum of Rs. 3,600/-, towards transportation a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and towards loss of income during laid up period a sum of Rs. 16,200/- was awarded by the Tribunal, the same are just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 18. 2,400/-, towards food and nutrition charges a sum of Rs. 3,600/-, towards transportation a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and towards loss of income during laid up period a sum of Rs. 16,200/- was awarded by the Tribunal, the same are just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 18. Towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 15%, but the Tribunal had taken 10%, the same is on higher side, it ought to have taken 5% disability. Having considered the income of Rs. 5,400/- per month and by applying the multiplier 18, it comes to Rs. 58,320/- (5400 x 12 x 18 x 5%) 19. In all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,29,906/- as against Rs. 1,94,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. In MFA No. 102093/2015: 20. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The claimant had suffered the fracture of base of 5th metatarsal of right foot and the tenderness in left thigh, which is a grievous injury in nature and she was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 18,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings, considering Rs. 15,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs. 3,000/- towards one simple injury, the same is just and reasonable. 21. With regard to medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 18,539/- was awarded based on the medical bills, towards attendant charges, a sum of Rs. 2,400/-, towards food and nutrition charges a sum of Rs. 3,600/-, towards transportation a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, the same does not call for any interference. 22. With regard to loss of income during laid up period a sum of Rs. 9,000/- was awarded, which is on lower side. Considering the nature of injury and fracture, this requires two months time to unite. Hence, Rs. 10,800/- (5400 x 2) is awarded on this head. 23. Towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability at 10%. 9,000/- was awarded, which is on lower side. Considering the nature of injury and fracture, this requires two months time to unite. Hence, Rs. 10,800/- (5400 x 2) is awarded on this head. 23. Towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the disability at 10%. Having considered the nature of fracture of base of 5th metatarsal of right foot and the tenderness in left thigh, though the Doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 18%, the Tribunal ought to have taken 5%. Having considered the income of Rs. 5400/- per month and by applying the multiplier 17, it comes to Rs. 55,080/- (5400 x 12 x 17 x 5%). 24. In all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,13,419/- as against Rs. 1,34,300/- awarded by the Tribunal. In MFA No. 102094/2015: 25. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The claimant had suffered the fracture of L5 vertebra which is a grievous injury and she was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident. Having considered the nature of injury sustained by him i.e., fracture of L5 vertebra, the Tribunal also taken note of the medical bills as well as the pain and sufferings and no appeal is filed by the claimant and also considered the attendant charges, food and nutrition and transportation and she was only an inpatient for a period of two days. Hence, the just and reasonable compensation has been awarded on all the heads by the Tribunal and the same does not call for any interference of this Court. In MFA No. 102095/2015: 26. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The claimant had suffered the fracture of right sacroiliac joint and she was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has awarded the just and reasonable compensation on all the heads, the same does not call for any interference of this Court. In MFA No. 102096/2015: 27. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The Tribunal has awarded the just and reasonable compensation on all the heads, the same does not call for any interference of this Court. In MFA No. 102096/2015: 27. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The claimant had suffered the dislocation of right elbow and other 4 simple injuries of abrasion of left elbow, tenderness at the left cheek, abrasion on left abdomen and swelling in left forearm and she was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has awarded the just and reasonable compensation on all the heads, the same does not call for any interference of this Court. In MFA No. 102097/2015: 28. Having considered the material available on record, the accident was taken place on 30.07.2010. The claimant had suffered the fracture of left 7 and 8th ribs, along with the abrasions on right leg, abrasions on the back of right shoulder joint and tenderness in the chest and he was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings, considering Rs. 15,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs. 3,000/- each towards two simple injuries, the same is just and reasonable. 29. With regard to medical expenses, a sum of Rs. 13,117/- was awarded based on the medical bills, towards attendant charges, a sum of Rs. 2,400/-, towards food and nutrition charges a sum of Rs. 3,600/-, towards transportation a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, the same does not call for any interference. 30. With regard to loss of income during laid up period a sum of Rs. 18,000/- was awarded, which is on higher side, the same is reduced to Rs. 16,200/- by taking the monthly income as Rs. 5,400/- (5400x3 months) 31. Towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in considering the disability at 7% and failed to take note of the fact that he had suffered only the fracture of ribs and ribs are also united. Hence, the question of awarding the compensation on this head for loss of future income does not arise. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability requires to be interfered with and the same is set aside. 32. Hence, the question of awarding the compensation on this head for loss of future income does not arise. Therefore, the compensation awarded towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability requires to be interfered with and the same is set aside. 32. In all, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 61,317/- as against Rs. 1,38,700/- awarded by the Tribunal. Point No. (iii): 33. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No. 102091/2015, MFA No. 102092/2015 MFA No. 102093/2015 MFA No. 102097/2015 are allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 27.03.2015 passed in MVC Nos. 1632/2013, 1634/2013, 1638/2013 and 1642/2013, respectively, on the file of Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti at Saundatti, stand modified by reducing the compensation, which are as follows: MVC No. Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Reduced Compensation 1632/2013 Rs.4,44,620/- Rs.1,62,092/- 1634/2013 Rs.1,94,400/- Rs.1,29,906/- 1638/2013 Rs.1,34,300/- Rs.1,13,419/- 1642/2013 Rs.1,38,700/- Rs.61,317/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. iii) The appeals filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No. 102094/2015 MFA No. 102095/2015 and MFA No. 102096/2015, are dismissed. iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. v) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the difference amount within six weeks. vi) The registry is directed to transmit the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.