JUDGMENT : H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2018 passed by MACT, Tumakuru in MVC No. 320/2017. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 10.11.2016 at about 1.30 a.m. the claimant was proceeding in Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. KA-02/F-2950 from Urdigere-Dabaspet. When they reached near Iraksandra colony, at that time, a heavy vehicle came from the opposite side, in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the claimant was compelled to take his car to the left side and dashed to the tree. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they 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 himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr. Lohith B.M. was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined but got exhibited document namely Ex.D1. 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 a compensation of Rs. 3,06,600/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,06,600/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions: Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was working as a driver and also transport business and earning Rs. 50,000/-per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs. 7,500/-per month. Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 8 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was 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. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions: Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs. 50,000/-per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally. Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The claimant claims that he was earning Rs. 50,000/-per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, the notional income has to be assessed as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs. 9,500/-p.m. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained dislocation of left side posterior acetabulum fracture, facial injury along with other injuries. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. Since the accident has taken place in the year 2016, the notional income has to be taken at Rs. 9,500/-p.m. As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained dislocation of left side posterior acetabulum fracture, facial injury along with other injuries. He has examined the doctor as PW-2. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor, PW-2 and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 10%. The claimant is aged about 24 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is 18'. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,05,200/-(Rs. 9,500*12*18*10%) on account of 'loss of future income'. The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 02 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 19,000/-(Rs. 9,500*2 months) under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He was treated as inpatient for more than 8 days in the hospital. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs. 20,000/-to Rs. 40,000/-'pain and sufferings' from Rs. 20,000/-to Rs. 40,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. 10. 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 20,000 40,000 Medical expenses 58,520, 58,520 Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 13,500 13,500 Loss of income during laid up period 7,500 19,000 Loss of amenities 20,000, 40,000 Loss of future income 1,62,000 2,05,200 Future medical expenses 25,000 25,000 Total 3,06,520 4,01,220 *The Tribunal has rounded of the award amount from Rs.3,06,520/- to Rs.3,06,600/- 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,01,220/-against Rs. 3,06,600/-awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,01,220/-against Rs. 3,06,600/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment excluding interest for the compensation awarded under the head of 'future medical expenses'. In view of the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 140 days in filing the appeal.