JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. These appeals are filed by the claimants as well as the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dtd. 17/3/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT, Channapatna (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC Nos. 167/2014, 168/2014 and 169/2014. 2. Though MVC Nos.167/2014, 168/2017 and 169/2017 were filed independently by the respective claimants, since they were arising out of the same accident, they were clubbed together and disposed of by the Tribunal under the common judgment and award dtd. 17/3/2017. 3. MFA No.5088/2017 (arising out of MVC No.167/2017), MFA No.5089/2017 (arising out of MVC No.168/2014) and MFA No.5090/2017 (arising out of MVC No.169/2014) are filed by the 2nd respondent -M/s. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company Limited (for short, 'Insurance Company/Insurer') respectively questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. MFA No. 3610/2018 (arising out of MVC No.169/2014) and MFA No. 3731/2017 (arising out of MVC No.167/2014) are filed by the petitioners/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award. 5. It is submitted that MFA No.3730/2017 (arising out of MVC No.168/2014) filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned judgment and award dtd. 17/3/2017 passed by the Tribunal, is settled before the Lok-Adalat. Hence, in view of the settlement of dispute in Lok-Adalat, MFA No.5089/2017, which is also arising out of MVC No.168/2014) does not survive for consideration. 6. The factual matrix in these appeals are that, on 20/1/2014 at about 3.30 p.m., the petitioners/claimants and deceased Smt. B.R. Lalitha were travelling in a car bearing No. KA.09.N.3418 on B.M. Road in front of KSPTS, Channapatna. At that time, the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing No. KA.42.N.1035 drove it with high speed and in rash and negligent manner and suddenly without any indication, applied break. As a result, the lorry hit the car on the rear end and due to which, one B.R. Lalitha sustained fatal injuries and succumbed, while other petitioners sustained grievous injuries. 7. In MFA No.3610/2018 arising out of MVC No.169/2014, the appellant/claimant-Master Sidhanth was a minor aged two years and he is the son of another claimant-M.V. Lakshmi. In the said case, the Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the minor petitioner/claimant, has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,79,320.00 with interest at 6% per annum. In the said case, the Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the minor petitioner/claimant, has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,79,320.00 with interest at 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the above said claim petition, the petitioner/claimant represented by his Natural Guardian, has filed MFA No.3610/2018 seeking enhancement, while the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has filed MFA No.5090/2017 disputing the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.169/2014. 8. MFA No.3731/2017 is filed by another petitioner/claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi in MVC No.167/2014, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,77,000.00 in respect of injuries sustained by her in the said accident. At the same time, the Insurance Company has also filed MFA No.5088/2017 (arising out of MVC No.167/2014) disputing the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. In MVC No.168/2014 filed by the petitioner/claimant-Sri. Nagananda N., the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,86,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner/claimant-Sri. N. Nagananda has filed MFA No.3730/2014 before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company fairly submits that the appeal filed by the Claimant-Sri. N.Nagananda in MFA No.3730/2017 arising out of MVC No.168/2014 is settled before the Lok-Adalath, and as such, the appeal filed by Insurance Company in MFA No.5089/2017 arising out of same claim petition in MVC No.168/2014 does not survive for consideration. 11. It is evident from records that, in MFA No.3730/2017 (arising out of MVC No.168/2014), though the appellant/claimant had sought for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, subsequently, the said appeal came to be settled before the Lok-Adalat. Therefore, in view the settlement arrived between the parties in MFA No.3730/2017 arising out of MVC No.168/2014, the appeal in MFA No.5090/2017 filed by the Insurance Company questioning quantum as well as liability, does not survive for consideration, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for appellant/Insurer. 12. In all these petitions, common defence is taken by the respondents No.1 and 2. Both the respondents have appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statements denying the allegations and assertions made in the claim petitions. 12. In all these petitions, common defence is taken by the respondents No.1 and 2. Both the respondents have appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statements denying the allegations and assertions made in the claim petitions. It is denied that the accident was due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Lorry. However, Respondent No.2/Insurer has admitted the coverage of insurance Policy and further contended that the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. 13. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of claimants and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of Insurance Company in all these appeals. Perused the records. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that the minor claimant in MVC No.169/2014 (MFA No.3610/2018) has suffered severe head injury and the disability is assessed at 75% by the Medical Officer, which is accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of Loss of Future Earning. The Tribunal ought to have taken minimum wage pertaining to skilled worker by adding 40% of income towards Future Prospects by applying multiplier of 18'. Hence, he would contend that though the injured was a minor of tender age, he was completely bed-ridden and his future is completely destroyed. Hence, he would seek for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Further, learned counsel for claimants has submitted that the appellant/claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi in MFA No.3731/2017 which is arising out of MVC No.167/2014, was inpatient for 7 days and the compensation awarded under the head of Pain and Suffering was on lower side and it needs to be enhanced. It is further submitted that only two months Laid-up Period is taken and it ought to have been taken as three months and no compensation was awarded under the head of Food, Nourishment and Attendant Charges and as such, appropriate compensation is to be awarded under this head and sought for allowing this appeal. 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company in MFA No.5089/2017, which is arising out of MVC no.168/2014 would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company in MFA No.5089/2017, which is arising out of MVC no.168/2014 would contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. He would fairly submits that, though initially the liability is disputed, in view of settlement of the matter before the Lok-Adalath in MFA No.3730/2017 arising out of MVC No.168/2014 pertaining to the same accident, he is not disputing the liability, as such, he would submit that he is now restricting the arguments only with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He would further contend that the claimant/minor injured was hardly aged two years as on the date of accident and though there is no serious dispute regarding disability, compensation under the head of Future Medical Expenses Rs.3,00,000.00 is awarded by the Tribunal, which is on higher side and hence, he sought for interference of this Court in this regard. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would further submits that, in respect of other claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi in MVC 167/2014 pertaining to MFA No.3731/2017 is concerned, the Doctor who treated the petitioner/claimant was not at all examined and the compensation awarded under the head of Pain and Suffering as well as Loss of Amenities is on higher side and the same requires to be reduced. Hence, he would seek for allowing the appeals filed by the Insurance Company. 18. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on both sides and perusing the records, it is evident that the offending Lorry was moving on Bengaluru-Mysuru Road in front of the car in which the claimants were travelling and when the said lorry was suddenly stopped without any signal, as a result the car hit the lorry on back side and as such, the accident occurred. Though initially there was an attempt to dispute the liability on the ground of contributory negligence, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has fairly submitted that since the claim petition in MVC No.168/2014 (MFA No.3730/2017) arising out of the same accident having been settled before Lok-Adalat, now the Insurance Company is not pressing the issue of liability and as such he requests the Court to consider the issue only regarding quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, considering this submission, now the Court has to appreciate the evidence on record regarding quantum. 19. Further, it is evident that the accident has occurred on 20/1/2014 at about 3.30 p.m., when the Car in which the petitioners/claimants were travelling was hit the Tipper Lorry moving ahead, as the driver of offending Tipper Lorry, without following the traffic rules, suddenly and abruptly stopped the lorry without any indication or signal, which has resulted in injuries to the minor petitioner and as well as one Smt. M.V. Lakshmi. Now, let us first consider regarding the appeal in MFA No.3610/2018 arising out of MVC No.169/2014, filed by the minor claimant-Master Sidhanth, wherein the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.17,79,320.00 under the following heads:- 20. As could be seen from the medical records, the minor claimant in the said case has suffered Traumatic brain injury, right temporal contusion, right MCA territory infarct, left external iliac DVT, fracture of 5th RIB on right side, aspiration pneumonitis and bilateral frontal subdural hygromas. He was treated in BGS Global Hospital as an inpatient from 20/1/2014 till 2/3/2014 and it is also evident from records that, he underwent surgery. At the same time, it is also important to note here that, when the said accident took place, the age minor was one year. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would contend that there are 07 head injuries and disability was taken at 75%, which was accepted by the Tribunal. But, the aspect of Future Loss of Earning Capacity was not considered and hence, according to him, even on the basis of minimum wage pertaining to skilled worker and by adding 40% of income towards Future Prospects of Life, the compensation ought to have been awarded. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the evidence of PW.2-Dr. Veeresha U. Mathad and also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2205 & 2206/2022 rendered on 29/3/2022 in case of Master Ayush Vs. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another. 21. At the out-set, on perusal of evidence of the Doctor (PW.2), it is evident that, he has given evidence only the basis of documents regarding injuries. Further, he is not the Doctor, who treated the injured claimant, but he is working in BGS Hospital since last one year. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another. 21. At the out-set, on perusal of evidence of the Doctor (PW.2), it is evident that, he has given evidence only the basis of documents regarding injuries. Further, he is not the Doctor, who treated the injured claimant, but he is working in BGS Hospital since last one year. The accident has occurred in the year 2014 and as on that date, PW.2 was not working in BGS Hospital. In his cross-examination, PW.2 admits that, he has not treated the injured child and he fairly states that, he examined the injured only for assessment of disability, and he further admits that the Doctor who treated the injured claimant is still working in BGS Hospital. He further admits that, at the time of discharge, the Doctor who treated the injured claimant, has assessed his health condition. He further admitted that, when the minor petitioner/claimant was discharged, he was aged one year and he also admits that since last one year, he is treating that child. But, no such medical documents relating to statement of PW.2 are forthcoming. He further admits that from Ex.P13-Out patient slip, it is evident that on 27/3/2014, the petitioner has visited the BGS Hospital and thereafter on 12/3/2016 i.e., after two years, he has examined the minor claimant. Hence, it is evident that after discharge, the injured approaching the Doctor who treated the injured is not forthcoming. Further his evidence discloses that, evacuation of bifrontal subdural fluid under general Anasthecia was done on 3/2/2014 and the petitioner withstood the procedure very well. Further he deposed that the petitioner developed pseudomeningocele at the burr hole sites and his repeat CT Scan showed significant subdural hygroma which persisted despite aspiration. But, subsequently the same has been resolved. His further evidence discloses that the petitioner gradually improved and was shifted to ward and he was also started oral feeding, which he tolerated well and he was weaned off the naso jejuna tube feeds and naso jejuna tube was removed. Further, the evidence of PW.2 discloses that the petitioner improved neurologically and his evidence further discloses that at the time of discharge, he was hemodynamically stable opening eyes spontaneously, but he was not obeying commands and he had weakness and spasticity in left upper and lower limbs. Further, the evidence of PW.2 discloses that the petitioner improved neurologically and his evidence further discloses that at the time of discharge, he was hemodynamically stable opening eyes spontaneously, but he was not obeying commands and he had weakness and spasticity in left upper and lower limbs. According to him, the petitioner will be having some permanent neurological disability as a consequence of his head injury. He further deposes that the claimant is having severe speech problem and left side spastic hemiparesis and he is not able to walk on his own. But, that does not demonstrate to take functional disability to 100% as claimed since the treated doctor is not examined, who was available and serving in hospital. According to him, he had moderately below average IQ with 67 and impaired congnitive abilities. Hence, he has assessed the disability to the extent of 75% to whole body. On the basis of these aspects, the learned counsel for the claimant contend that it is functional disability and hence, he placed reliance on a decision in the case of Master Ayush referred supra and sought for awarding compensation under the head of Loss of Future Income also. 22. In case of Master Ayush, the was aged about eight years and was suffering from Traumatic Pontiac Paraplegia following T.10-11 spinal card lesion dur to road traffic accident. Further, in the said case, the child was not able to walk due to poor motor and sensory recovery in LL muscles. But, no such evidence is forthcoming in the instant case. In the instant case, the child is hardly one year when it met with accident. Under these circumstances, the principles enunciated in the decision of Master Ayush (cited supra), cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The Tribunal after relying the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another [ AIR 2014 SC 736 ], has considered the disability at 75% and awarded global compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 under the head of Pain and Suffering including loss of amenities etc., which is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 23. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,70,000.00 towards Medical Expenses, Incidental charges during hospitalization and Rs.3,00,000.00 towards Future Medical Expenses. 23. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,70,000.00 towards Medical Expenses, Incidental charges during hospitalization and Rs.3,00,000.00 towards Future Medical Expenses. The learned counsel claims that he has records to show that he has already spent nearly more than Rs.2,00,000.00 subsequently. Considering these aspects, under this head, no further enhancement is required and at the same time, any reduction is also not possible. Hence, the compensation awarded under these heads is just and proper and does not call any interference. 24. Under the head of discomfort, inconvenience and loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization of minor claimant, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.9,320.00. The Tribunal has only considered 40 days hospitalization of the minor claimant by taking notional income at Rs.7,000.00 per month. Admittedly, the accident has occurred in the year 2014 and merely because the minor claimant was admitted in hospital for 40 days is not a ground to deny the loss of income to parents, as the parents are likely to apply leave to take care of the injured child. Considering the nature and gravity of injuries suffered by the child, at least it needs three months to the child to become stable. Looking to these facts, the claimant would be entitled to compensation for three months in respect of loss of earning to his guardian. 25. This Court is consistently taking income pertaining to the accident occurred in the year 2014 at Rs.8,500.00 per month. Hence, considering this aspect, it would be just and proper to award an additional compensation of Rs.25,000.00 under the head of Loss of Income to Guardian during the laid-up period of claimant. In addition to that, considering the nature and gravity of injuries, in my opinion, it is just and proper to award Rs.20,000.00 under the head of attendant charges, nourishment etc. 26. In the facts and circumstances, the appellant-minor/claimant in MFA No.3610/2018 is entitled for total revised compensation of Rs.18,15,000.00 under the following as under: 27. As regards the claimant-M.V. Lakshmi in MFA No.3731/2017 is concerned, she has suffered Blunt abdominal trauma, splenic trauma grade-III, fracture of left acetabulum and scalp laceration, and she took treatment as an inpatient in BGS Global Hospital from 20/1/2014 till 27/1/2014. Admittedly, these injuries are grievous in nature. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,77,000.00 under the following heads: 28. Admittedly, these injuries are grievous in nature. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,77,000.00 under the following heads: 28. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in MFA No.3731/2017 has argued that the compensation awarded under the head of Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities is on higher side. But, considering the fact that, she was admitted in the hospital for nearly seven days and she was the mother of the minor child, who suffered head injury, her trauma cannot be compensated in terms of money. Further, though the learned counsel for claimant asserts that no compensation was awarded under the head of disability, there is no evidence in respect of this claimant suffering any disability. Hence, question of enhancing or reducing compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi in MFA No.3731/2017 and MFA No.5088/2017 arising out of MVC No.167/2014, does not arise at all. 29. In the facts and circumstances, the appeals in MFA No.3731/2017 and MFA No.5088/2017 which are arising out of MVC No.167/2014, do not survive for consideration. However, MFA No.3610/2018 arising out of MVC No.169/2014 needs to be allowed-in-part, while appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.5090/2017, which arises out same case ie., MVC No.169/2014, needs to be dismissed. 30. Apart from the above observation, in view of settlement of dispute amicably in MFA No.3730/2017 (arising out of MVC 168/2014) before Lok-Adalat, MFA No.5089/2017, which is also arising out of MVC No.168/2014, filed by the Insurance Company against impugned judgment and award, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i) The appeal in MFA No.3610/2018 is allowed-in- part. The impunged judgment and award dtd. 17/3/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT, Channapatna (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC No. 169/2014, stands modified. ii) The minor appellant/claimant-Master Sidhanth is held entitled for total compensation of Rs.18,15,000.00 as against Rs.17,79,320.00 awarded by the Tribunal. iii) The enhanced compensation of Rs.35,680.00 (Rs.18,15,000.00 Rs.17,79,320.00) shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realistion. iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest accrued thereon, within six weeks from today. iii) The enhanced compensation of Rs.35,680.00 (Rs.18,15,000.00 Rs.17,79,320.00) shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realistion. iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest accrued thereon, within six weeks from today. v) The enhanced compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon, shall be released in favour of the Natural Guardian of the minor petitioner/claimant, who has filed the claim petition No.169/2014 and MFA 3610/2018. vi) The MFA No.3731/2017 filed by the petitioner/claimant-Smt. M.V. Lakshmi and the appeals in MFA No.5088/2017, MFA No.5089/2017 and MFA No.5090/2017 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. The statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company before this Court in MFA No.5088/2017, MFA No.5089/2017 and MFA No.5090/2017, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.