JUDGMENT : M.F.A.No.101415/2019 is filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation. M.F.A.No.102280/2019 is filed by Sri Vilas, injured claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation. These appeals are arising out of the impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2019 passed by III Adl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi in M.V.C.No.1317/2017. 2. Brief facts giving raise to the filing of these appeals are that the appellant/claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road accident taken place on 11.05.2017. It is averred that the appellant injured on 11.05.2017 at about 11.45 p.m. had parked his truck bearing registration No.MH-43/U-1431 by the side of NH-4 near KLE Bye Pass Road, Belagavi applying parking lights and he was standing in front of his truck. At that time, one Ashok Leyland goods carrier vehicle bearing registration NO.MH-12/NX-19008 came from rear side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his truck. Due to the mpact of the dash, the vehicle of the claimant moved ahead and he sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Sri Ortho and Trauma Centre, Belagavi and he was inpatient from 12.05.2017 to 20.06.2017, underwent surgery and incurred huge expenditures. The police registered the crime and investigated the case. It is further averred that the appellant/claimant was working as a driver and earning Rs.16,000/-p.m. and was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. Due to the accident, his left leg was amputed and he is unable to do any type of work as well as driving work and sustained 100% physical disability, he requires regular attendant to do date-to-day activities. It is also averred that the accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-12/NX-9008. It is averred that the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are the owners and respondent Nos.2 and 4 being the insurers of these vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 3. The respondent No.1 and 3 did not appear before the Tribunal and placed exparte. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 appeared. It is averred that the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are the owners and respondent Nos.2 and 4 being the insurers of these vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 3. The respondent No.1 and 3 did not appear before the Tribunal and placed exparte. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 appeared. The respondent No.2 filed statement of objections contending that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 but due to the wrong parking of the lorry by the injured claimant. He had parked the vehicle without any indication and the injured claimant has sustained injuries due to dashing of his own vehicle and not the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008. It is averred that the injured claimant incorrectly stated his age, occupation and income and denied the injuries suffered by the injured claimant. It is also averred that the accident in question has occurred due to the negligent parking of the Appellant/claimant himself without any indication of its presence to the traffic passing on the road by not switching on the parking lights and it is he alone is responsible for the accident and sought the Tribunal for fastening 100% liability on the injured claimant. 4. The Tribunal has framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The appellant injured examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. S.D. Patil as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-25. The respondents examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and got marked documents at Exs.R-1 to R-31. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record has awarded total compensation of Rs.7,26,095/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. However, saddled 70% liability to pay the compensation on the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 and 30% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Thus, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,08,266/-to the claimant. 5. Learned counsel Sri M.K. Soudagar appearing for insurance company submits that the accident had taken place on 11.05.2017 at 11.45 p.m. when the appellant/claimant had parked his truck bearing No.MH-43/U-1431 by the side of NH-4 near KLE Byepass Road, Belagavi, without switching on the parking lights and was standing in front of his truck. 5. Learned counsel Sri M.K. Soudagar appearing for insurance company submits that the accident had taken place on 11.05.2017 at 11.45 p.m. when the appellant/claimant had parked his truck bearing No.MH-43/U-1431 by the side of NH-4 near KLE Byepass Road, Belagavi, without switching on the parking lights and was standing in front of his truck. At that time, Ashok Leyland goods carrier vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 came from rear side and dashed the vehicle of the claimant, resulted in his truck had moved ahead and he has sustained injuries. He submits that the appellant/claimant was negligent in parking the vehicle on the National Highway without taking any precautions of switching on the parking lights which has resulted in the accident and the driver of the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 is not responsible for the accident. It is submitted that due to the incorrect parking of the vehicle by the appellant/claimant, the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 dashed from the rear side to the parked vehicle and in the said accident, the cleaner of the insured vehicle succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 6. It is further submitted that the appellant/claimant examined himself as PW-1 and categorically admitted that the vehicle was parked on the National Highway No.4 and without applying any indicators. Exs. P-4 and P-5 panchanama and sketch clearly depict that the appellant/claimant had parked the vehicle on the National Highway. He submits that the Tribunal has fastened 70% liability on the insurance company and 30% on the appellant/claimant which is contrary to the evidence on record as the appellant/claimant is responsible in causing the accident. Hence, the entire liability is required to be fastened on the appellant/claimant. He further submits that the Tribunal has considered the disability at 15% which is proper and correct and does not call for any interference in the appeal filed by the claimant. It is further submitted that the appellant/claimant at the time of accident was 29 years, however the Tribunal has incorrectly considered his age, applied 18 as multiplier it should have been 17. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation on all the heads and he submits that the Tribunal has assessed income at Rs.11,000/-p.m. which is also on higher side which requires to be interfered. Hence, sought for reduction of the compensation. 7. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant compensation on all the heads and he submits that the Tribunal has assessed income at Rs.11,000/-p.m. which is also on higher side which requires to be interfered. Hence, sought for reduction of the compensation. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Vittal Teli for claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed error in fastening 30% liability on the appellant/claimant. The offending vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and without noticing that the appellant/claimant has parked the vehicle on the extreme left side of the highway, dashed the truck from rear side, which resulted in the accident. 8. It is submitted that the documents at Exs.P-4 and P-5 make it abundantly clear that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the left side of 40 feet width road on NH-4 and towards the right side of the vehicle, there was 32 feet road available and without passing through the available 32 feet road, the insured vehicle came from the rear side on the left side and dashed the parked vehicle. The driver of the parked vehicle i.e., appellant/claimant had taken precaution i.e., switching on the indicators and without noticing the same, the driver of the vehicle bearing NO.MH-12/NX-9008 negligently dashed the vehicle that was parked on the left side of the road and caused accident. Hence, the entire liability is required to be fastened on the driver of the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 which was insured with the insurance company. Insofar as award of compensation by the Tribunal is concerned, he submits that the claimant was a driver and he was earning more than Rs.16,000/-p.m. and assessing the income at Rs.11,000/-by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is submitted that the Tribunal has considered the disability of the claimant at 15% which is on the lower side as the appellant/claimant has examined the doctor who has assessed the permanent disability of the claimant to an extent of 45% to the left lower limb as the left leg was amputated. It is submitted that on other heads also the Tribunal has awarded the lesser compensation. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal of the claimant and for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurer. 9. It is submitted that on other heads also the Tribunal has awarded the lesser compensation. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal of the claimant and for dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurer. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the claimant and insurance company, perused the memorandum of appeals and Tribunal records. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: 1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability of 70% on the appellant insurance company and 30% on the appellant injured? 2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 10. The answers to the above points are in negative for the following reasons: It is not in dispute that on 11.05.2017 at about 11.45 p.m., the accident took place between the parked truck bearing registration No.MH-43/U-1431 and Ashok Leyland Goods Carrier vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 which was coming from rear side of the parked vehicle and dashed against the parked vehicle and resulted in the driver and clearer of the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX9008 were struck inside the cabin and cleaner of the said vehicle was succumbed to the injuries and the driver of the parked vehicle bearing No.MH-43/U-1431 sustained grievous injuries to his left foot and subsequently the said foot was amputed. Considering these facts, the Tribunal has fastened 70% liability on the truck bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 and 30% on the appellant/ claimant who was the driver of vehicle bearing No.MH-43/U-1431 and awarded the compensation. The insurance company which insured the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 is in appeal contending that the Tribunal has committed error in fastening liability of 70% on the insured vehicle as the driver of vehicle bearing No.MH-43/U-1431 was negligent in parking his truck on the National Highway without any indication of its presence and without switching on the parking lights and the accident has taken place around 11.45 p.m. 11. It is not in dispute that the accident has taken place on 11.05.2017 at about 11.45 p.m. It is evident that PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that the accident took place at about 11.45 p.m., he had parked the vehicle on the National Highway as the headlights of his truck were not working he could not proceed further. He further deposed that there was complete darkness on the road. He further deposed that there was complete darkness on the road. In view of the above deposition, PW-1 has partly admitted that there was darkness on the road when the accident took place, however he is justified in saying that the headlights of his truck were not working. Hence, he was compelled to park the vehicle on the road. The statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation it is evident that the appellant injured had not switched on the parking lights while parking the vehicle. The jurisdictional police after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant/ claimant as well as the driver of the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008. On perusal of the evidence of RW-1, Exs.P-1 and P-7 it is evident that both the vehicles have damaged extensively in the accident. On careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record it clearly establish that the appellant injured was compelled to park his lorry on the National Highway as the headlights were not working, however he was equally negligent in not taking precautions by switching on the indicators. Similarly the driver of the vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 was negligent for the reason that the width of the road being 40 feet and being the one way, the spot panchanama at Ex.P-4 clearly reveals that there was 32 feet road available beside the parked vehicle towards the right side. Hence, the driver of vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 could have been more cautious and could have driven the vehicle on the right side of the road, instead he came in high speed, resulting in dashing of the parked vehicle. The MVI report on record clearly reveals that the entire cabin of the vehicle bearing MH-12/U-4131 has broken and entered into the parked vehicle and due to the force of the accident the cleaner of the said vehicle died on the spot. Hence, we are of the considered view that both the vehicles i.e., vehicle bearing No.MH-12/NX-9008 and vehicle bearing MH-12/U-4131 have contributed equally to the accident. Hence, we hold both the drivers of vehicles in question are responsible and have contributed for the accident and we proceed to fasten the liability to the extent of 50% each on the drivers of both the vehicles. 12. Insofar as award of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,08,266/-on different heads. Hence, we hold both the drivers of vehicles in question are responsible and have contributed for the accident and we proceed to fasten the liability to the extent of 50% each on the drivers of both the vehicles. 12. Insofar as award of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,08,266/-on different heads. The Tribunal has recorded that the appellant injured has not produced any document before the Tribunal to show his income as Rs.16,000/-per month and on considering the available material, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income at Rs.11,000/-per month. The Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the appellant-injured at Rs.11,000/-in the absence of any evidence on record. This Court and in Lok-adalaths while determining the claims of victims of motor vehicle accidents, assess the notional income keeping in mind the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In the instant case, the accident has taken place on 11.05.2017 and as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income for the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In our considered view, the income of the appellant-injured has to be assessed at Rs.10,250/-placing reliance on the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 13. It is not in dispute that the appellant-injured was 29 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal has applied 18 multiplier, but it should have been 17. Insofar as assessing the disability of the appellant-injured, the appellant in support of his case has examined the doctor PW-2 Dr.Satish Patil, who has issued disability certificate to the appellant-injured which is produced as Ex.P-9. On careful perusal of Ex.P-9 and oral testimony of PW-2, it is evident that the appellant-injured has suffered "Traumatic Auto Amputation Left Foot at 2/3rd level, bleeding + Gross contamination underlaying bone muscles, nerves and vessels were crushed." The appellant-injured has suffered grievous injuries, his left foot was amputated. The doctor has assessed his permanent disability to an extent of 45% to his left lower limb. It is not in dispute that the appellant-injured was a driver and due to the injuries suffered by him, his left foot is amputated. He is unable to perform his duties as a driver after the accident in question. Hence, in our considered view the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the disability of the appellant-injured at 15%. It is not in dispute that the appellant-injured was a driver and due to the injuries suffered by him, his left foot is amputated. He is unable to perform his duties as a driver after the accident in question. Hence, in our considered view the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the disability of the appellant-injured at 15%. It is not in dispute that the appellant-injured has sustained amputation of his left foot, the disability assessed by the doctor PW-2 is 45% to the particular limb. There may not be any dispute with regard to the disability assessed by the doctor, however, this Court is required to consider with regard to the assessment of his loss of future earning capacity and functional disability. The appellant-injured is unable to carryout driving work after the accident. In our considered view, the disability suffered by the appellant-injured may be permanent partial disability and it would affect his earning capacity as the appellant-injured was a driver and due to the amputation of his left foot, he cannot perform his duties as a driver. In our considered view, the appellant-injured has lost earning capacity to on extent of 75%. The appellant-injured can carry on some other or lesser scale activities and functions so that he can continue to earn for his livelihood. It will be useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , wherein paragraph Nos.10 to 14 reads as under: "10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567 ). 12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity." 14. Having taken note of the aforesaid material evidence on record and the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the claimant, it is just and proper to award future prospects at 40% as held by the Apex Court in the case of Jagadish Vs. Mohan & Anr., reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571 . 15. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled for compensation towards 'loss of future income' as under: Rs.10,250 + 40% X 12 X 17 X 75%=Rs.21,95,550/- 16. Insofar as award of compensation under the other heads does not call for any interference. 17. Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled for the modified compensation as under: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Pain & suffering 60,000/- 2. Loss of amenities 25,000/- 3. Loss of future income 21,95,550/- 4. Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.10,250 X 4) 41,000/- 5. Medical expenses 2,00,694/- 6. Attendant & Misc. Expenses 40,000/- Total Rs.25,62,244/- 18. Thus, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,62,244/-as against Rs.7,26,094/-awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER : (i) Both the appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.25,62,244/-as against Rs.7,26,094/-awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The claimant would be entitled to 50% of the total compensation of Rs.25,62,244/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization. (iii) The claimant would be entitled to 50% of the total compensation of Rs.25,62,244/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization. (iv) The appellant in M.F.A.No.101415/2019 (Insurance company) shall deposit 50% of the total compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. (v) The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with original records. (vi) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal. (vii) Draw modified award accordingly.