JUDGMENT M.G.S. Kamal, J. - The appeal in MFA. 4852/2019 is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') against the judgment and award dated 04.02.2019 passed in MVC No. 7583/2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-15) (for short 'Tribunal'). 2. The facts leading upto filing of the present appeal briefly stated are that, on 15.11.2017, at about 9.35 a.m., the appellant/claimant was proceeding on his Activa Honda motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-02/HW-8576. When he reached near Chikkiraiah Estate, Bidadi Hobli, Byramangala-Hosur road, Ramanagara district, another motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-42/W-4080 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant was thrown on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Claimant was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment. A case in Crime No. 487/2017 was registered. 3. Thereupon, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the ground that he was aged about 43 years, was doing agricultural and contract work and was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month and that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider, resulting in grievous injuries to him and due to the same, he is not able to carry out his regular work as he was doing earlier, thereby reducing his earning ability. That the accident was caused on account of negligent riding of the motorcycle by respondent No. 2 and said motorcycle was insured with respondent No. 1. As such, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4. Upon service of notice, respondent No. 2 did not appear and was placed ex parte. Respondent No. 1 appeared through its counsel and filed its statement of objections, admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle. However, denied the averments made in the petition regarding mode and manner of accident. It was contended that the rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident as alleged by the claimant. However, denied the averments made in the petition regarding mode and manner of accident. It was contended that the rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident as alleged by the claimant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW. 1 and one doctor namely, Prakashappa T.H. has been examined as PW. 2. Eleven documents were exhibited as Exs. P1 to P11. On behalf of respondent No. 1-insurance company, one Sri Nagendra R has been examined as RW. 1 and copy of policy has been exhibited as Ex. R1. 6. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider and consequently held that the claimant is entitled for compensation as follows: Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Loss of laid up period (8,000x2=16,000) Rs.16,000/- Medical expenses Rs.9,500/- Future medical expenditure Rs.10,000/- Loss of future income Rs.1,88,500/- Diet & conveyance Rs.10,000/- Loss of emenities Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.3,04,000/- 7. The Tribunal directed the respondent No. 1-insurance company to pay the compensation together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, within 60 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs. 8,000/- per month even though he was earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month from agriculture and contract work. That the Doctor-PW. 2, who had treated the claimant had deposed by way of an affidavit before the Tribunal specifically assessing the disability suffered by the appellant/claimant at 20% and that in the availability of the evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal ought not to have reassessed the disability at 14%. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are on lower side. Referring to requirement of future medical expenses, learned counsel submits that the Doctor-PW. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are on lower side. Referring to requirement of future medical expenses, learned counsel submits that the Doctor-PW. 2 in his evidence has specifically stated that the appellant/claimant need one more surgery for removal of implant, the cost of which would be around Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, but the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- which is on lower side. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation by allowing the appeal. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/insurance company justifying the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the assessment of income at Rs. 8,000/- per month is just and proper. He submits that though the claimant claimed to have been earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from his agriculture and contract work he has not produced any evidence. That even for the purpose of consideration of national income as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, there should be some material on record regarding avocation of the appellant/claimant and only then the national income as per the chart could be taken into consideration. In the instant case, he submits, that since the claimant has not produced any material evidence, even recourse of the chart cannot be made. Further referring to the disability and the requirement of future medical expenses, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the assessment of the disability at 20% made by the Doctor-PW. 2 cannot be countenanced as no certificate in this regard has been furnished. Therefore, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at 14% is just and proper. He also contended that the accident is of the year 2017, we are in the year 2022 if at all the surgery was required, the same could have been done by now, since there is no material supporting requiring the surgery, the claimant is not entitled any future medical expenses. That the appellant/claimant has not made out any ground for enhancement of the compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. On thoughtful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the appellant/claimant has made out a case for enhancement of the compensation?" 12. The accident in question involving Activa Honda bearing Reg. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. On thoughtful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the appellant/claimant has made out a case for enhancement of the compensation?" 12. The accident in question involving Activa Honda bearing Reg. No. KA-02/HW-8576 and the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-42/W-4080 belonging to respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. The claimant has suffered the following injuries on account of the accident as found at Ex. P4-wound certificate: "i) Swelling, tenderness, crepitus, deformity-X-Ray shows, Compound fracture both bones of (L) leg". 13. Discharge summary at Ex. P6 reveal that the claimant has undergone the treatment. Dr. Prakashappa-PW. 2 who treated the claimant has entered witness box and has filed affidavit in lieu of his evidence. Perusal of the said affidavit, reveal that the said Doctor has relied upon the documents such as X-rays, clinical and radiological examination carried out by him. Based on the said material and examination, he has assessed the disability, as per the guidelines issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of his affidavit provide details of the injuries and the extent of disability in the nature of movement of distal end and foot has been taken into consideration. On the basis of these details PW. 2 has assessed the disability of the appellant/claimant at 20%. He has also deposed that the appellant/claimant has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implant, involving cost of Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- in his hospital. In the cross examination, except the answer that as per the X-ray fracture is reunited, nothing has been elicited discrediting the assessment of disability made by the said witness. In that light of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have relied upon the assessment of the disability at 20% instead of reassessing it at 14%. Thus, the assessment made by the Tribunal at 14% requires to be modified and enhanced at 20% as made by the Doctor-PW. 2, who is an repeat in the filed. 14. Adverting to the income of the appellant/claimant, though it is claimed that he was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from his agriculture and contract activities, no material evidence in this regard has been produced. 2, who is an repeat in the filed. 14. Adverting to the income of the appellant/claimant, though it is claimed that he was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month from his agriculture and contract activities, no material evidence in this regard has been produced. This Court in the absence of any material evidence with regard to the income of the victims of a Road Traffic Accident, invariably takes into consideration the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the chart, the notional income of the victim, of the road traffic accident for the year 2017 has been notionally fixed at Rs. 11,000/- and the same is taken into consideration in the present case instead Rs. 8,000/- per month as taken by the Tribunal. Thus, considering the age of the claimant being 43 years at the time of accident, applicable multiplier is 14'. Thus the loss of future income of the appellant/claimant would be Rs. 3,69,600/- (11,000x12x14x20%). 15. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries being compound fracture of both bones of left leg, an additional sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded enhancing the compensation to Rs. 60,000/- instead Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 16,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. The injuries involving fracture would normally take 3 months for recovery. This Court has notionally awarded income at Rs. 11,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss of income during laid up period is taken for 3 months. Thus, Rs. 33,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of income during laid up period instead of Rs. 16,000/-. 17. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,500/- towards medical expenses and the same is maintained as just and proper. 18. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses. Considering the evidence of the Doctor who has stated the requirement of surgery involving removal of implant and the approximate cost being Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded under the said head instead of Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards diet and conveyance, the said amount is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- by adding Rs. 10,000/-. Under the head of loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, the said amount is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by adding Rs. 15,000/- is awarded under the said head instead of Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards diet and conveyance, the said amount is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- by adding Rs. 10,000/-. Under the head of loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal, the said amount is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- by adding Rs. 20,000/- under the said head. 19. Thus, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,57,100/- as follows: Heads By Tribunal By this Court Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- Rs.60,000/- Loss of laid up period Rs.16,000/- Rs.33,000/- Medical expenses Rs.9,500/- Rs.9,500/- Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of future income Rs.1,88,500/- Rs.3,69,600/- Towards diet and conveyance Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.3,04,000/- Rs.5,57,100/- 20. On the enhanced compensation, the claimant is entitled for interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 21. The above point is answered accordingly and following order is passed: ORDER a. The MFA. No. 4852/2019 filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed-in-part and the judgment and order of the Tribunal in MVC No. 7583/2017 is modified. b. The appellant/claimant is held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,57,100/- instead Rs. 3,04,000/- awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. However, the appellant/claimant shall not be entitled any interest on the award of compensation under the head of future medical expenses. c. The respondent No. 1-insurance company is directed to pay the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.