JUDGMENT : LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J. The claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. The Tribunal had disposed of the claim petitions by way of a common order. Hence, this Court is disposing of these appeals by a common order. MFA No.474/2024 (arising out of MVC No.6/2018) 2. Aggrieved by the Award passed in MVC No.6/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 07.04.2016, at about 10.15 a.m., when the claimant was travelling in Innova car from Tumakuru to Velankanni Church, when they reached Krishnagiri to Salem National Highway, near old Dharmapuri Government School, the driver of the Tata container lorry had parked on the National Highway Road without any indicator or signal in the negligent manner. The driver of the Innova Car hit the lorry and caused accident. As a result of which, all the inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries on the different parts of their body and four people died on the spot. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 4. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence has held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., Innova car and the Tata goods vehicle are responsible for the accident and the insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. 5. When it comes to the compensation, as per the wound certificate i.e. Ex.P4, claimant had sustained as many as 9 injuries and as per the opinion of the Doctor, injury Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9 are simple in nature and injury Nos.6 and 7 are grievous in nature. The Tribunal granted the compensation as per the table given below: When it comes to the loss of future income, the Tribunal has observed that, as the Doctor was not examined and as there is no evidence to show that, the injuries sustained by the claimant has an impact on his future earning on account of disability, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation. 6. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that, in fact, the claimant has examined the Doctor, but however, the Doctor has not quantified the disability, but the Tribunal has observed that no Doctor is examined. It is submitted that as on the date of the accident, claimant was aged about 12 years and the injuries that are sustained by him will have an impact on his future earnings and the Tribunal ought to have considered the same. It is further submitted that if an opportunity is given to the claimant by remanding the matter, he would be examining the Doctor. 7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent/the Insurance Company submit that when the claimant has failed to elicit from the Doctor what is the disability, there is no question of remanding the matter, as it would not serve any purpose. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court has observed the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the future medical expenses and the disability. According to the claimant/appellant, the Doctor was examined, but he has not quantified the disability. As per the observation of the Tribunal, no Doctor is examined. Considering the injuries that are sustained by the claimant, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: i). The award passed in MVC No.6/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. ii) Without further reference, the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.2025 and the Tribunal shall decide the case within a period of two months. iii) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. iv) All the contentions are left open to the parties with regard to the assessment of disability as well as quantum of compensation. v) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi) No Costs. vii) Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. MFA No.502/2024 (arising out of MVC No.7/2018) 9. Aggrieved by the Award passed in MVC No. 7/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 10. vi) No Costs. vii) Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. MFA No.502/2024 (arising out of MVC No.7/2018) 9. Aggrieved by the Award passed in MVC No. 7/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 10. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence had held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Innova car and the Tata goods vehicle are responsible for the accident and the insurers of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation and granted the compensation as per the table given below: 11. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the salary of the deceased is taken at Rs.9,500/- per month. It is submitted that as per Ex.P8, deceased has done her masters in Economics and the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income at Rs.9,500/- per month. It is submitted that Tribunal has failed to consider the qualification and the income of the deceased and failed to grant a just and reasonable compensation. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that, the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation considering all the facts and based on the evidence on record, no enhancement is called for. 13. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute that as per Ex.P8, deceased has done her Masters in Economics. The Tribunal has taken Rs.9,500/- per month as her income, as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority. Considering the educational qualification of the deceased as per Ex.P8, this Court is taking Rs.11,000/- per month as her income, future prospects is taken at 40% (Rs.4,400/-), and the total salary would comes to Rs.15,400/- (11,000 + 4,400). Out of which, 1/3 rd (Rs.5,133/-) has to be deducted towards personal expenses then her contribution to the family would comes to Rs.10,267/- per month. Therefore, under the head of ' loss of dependency' this Court is granting an amount of (Rs.10,267x12x15) Rs.18,48,060/- rounded off to Rs.18,48,000/- 14. The claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.88,000/-(44,000X2) towards 'loss of consortium'. Towards ' funeral expenses and loss of estate' this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/- . 15. Therefore, under the head of ' loss of dependency' this Court is granting an amount of (Rs.10,267x12x15) Rs.18,48,060/- rounded off to Rs.18,48,000/- 14. The claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.88,000/-(44,000X2) towards 'loss of consortium'. Towards ' funeral expenses and loss of estate' this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,000/- . 15. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another , (2014) 11 SC 178 the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses'. 16. Altogether, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.19,82,000/- . under the following heads: 17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.17,17,060/- to Rs.19,82,000/- and the Insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. On 06.11.2025, the delay of 272 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. iii. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iv. Respondents/Insurance Company of both the vehicles shall deposit the amount equally within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. v Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi. No costs. vii Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. MFA No.559/2024 (arising out of MVC No.11/2018) 18. Aggrieved by the Award passed in MVC No.11/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 19. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence had held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Innova car and the Tata goods vehicle are responsible for the accident and the insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. 20. 19. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence had held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Innova car and the Tata goods vehicle are responsible for the accident and the insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. 20. The facts of the case are that the deceased has completed her B.E. and she was excellent in academics, she participated and presented many research papers in National conferences and she was working as Assistant Professor at C.I.T. Engineering College and also conducted private tuitions to P.U.C. and B.Sc., students and was earning an amount of Rs.45,000/- per month. In support of the income, the Principal of C.I.T. was examined as PW2. In his evidence, he has deposed that the deceased was working in his Institution and in order to prove it, he has also produced Ex.P9 to Ex. P11. Ex. P9 is the Attendance Register extract, Ex. P10 is the casualty certificate and Ex.P11 is the salary statement for the month of March pertaining to the deceased. Appointment order dated 04.07.2014 also reflects the appointment of the deceased as Assistant Professor in the said Institute. As per the evidence of PW2, her gross salary is Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal has deducted Rs.200/- towards professional tax and the income was taken as Rs.19,800/- per month. When it comes to the 'future prospects', the Tribunal has taken 'future prospects' at 50% and deducted 50% towards personal expenses and granted the compensation as per the table below: Head of Compensation Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency for petitioners who are the father and mother of the deceased 2. On traditional heads A. Loss of Estate B. Loss of consortium c. Towards funeral expenses 16,500/- 44,000/- 16,500/- Total Compensation 32,84,600/- 21. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3 rd towards personal expenses and not 50%. It is submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is not just and reasonable. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had granted 50% towards future prospects when she has no Government job, however, the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation in respect of other heads and no enhancement is called for. 23. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material available on record. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had granted 50% towards future prospects when she has no Government job, however, the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation in respect of other heads and no enhancement is called for. 23. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material available on record. As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute on that. Her income is Rs.20,000/- per month and after deducting Rs.200/- towards professional tax, her income is taken as Rs.19,800/- per month. She is a married woman. Hence, this Court is inclined to deduct 1/3 rd as her personal expenses and granted 40% towards the future prospects. Future prospects at 40% would come to Rs.7,920/-. Then her salary is Rs.27,720/- (19,800 + 7,920) per month. 1/3 rd has to be deducted which would comes to Rs.9,240/- and her contribution to the family would be Rs.18,480/-. Under the head of ' loss of dependency' this Court is granting an amount of (Rs.18,480X12X18) Rs.39,91,680/- . Towards 'loss of consortium' this Court is granting an amount of Rs.44,000/-. Towards 'funeral expenses and loss of estate' this Court is granting an amount of Rs.36,.000/-. 25. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another , (2014) 11 SC 178 the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses' 26. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,81,680/- under the following heads: 27. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.32,84,600 /- to Rs.40,81,680/- and the Insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The delay of 272 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. iii. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iv. ii. The delay of 272 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. iii. The apportionment of the amount shall be as per the order passed by the Tribunal. iv. Respondents/Insurance Company of both the vehicles shall deposit the amount equally within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi. No costs. vii. Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. MFA No.561/2024 (arising out of MVC No.8/2018) 28. Aggrieved by the Award passed in MVC No.8/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 29. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence has held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Innova car and the Tata goods vehicle are responsible for the accident and the insurers of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. 30. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.48,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. The claimant was treated for cervical spine-displaced fracture transverse process through forearm, transversarium of C7 on right side, right vertebral artery at the dame level demonstrates normal contrast, opacification, undisplaced fracture, transverse process of C7 on left side and CT brain- no intracranial haemorrhage/bony injury subgaleal hematoma in right parietal and occipital scalp and medical records reveals that the injuries are grievous in nature. The Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering. When it comes to the disability, it is the evidence of the Doctor that the claimant had sustained 75% limb disability and 27% whole body disability. The Tribunal had taken the income at Rs.9,500/- per month and 27% disability and granted future loss of income. The compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is as per the table given below: Head of Compensation Amount (in Rs.) 1. Pain, shock and agony 70,000/- 2. Medical expenses 3,53,100/- 3. Food, diet, Nourishment, conveyance, and other incidental expenses 20,000/- 4. The compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is as per the table given below: Head of Compensation Amount (in Rs.) 1. Pain, shock and agony 70,000/- 2. Medical expenses 3,53,100/- 3. Food, diet, Nourishment, conveyance, and other incidental expenses 20,000/- 4. Future Medical expenses Not entitled 5. Loss of income during treatment period 28,500/- 6. Loss of income due to permanent disability 4,61,700/- 7. Disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities 35,000/- TOTAL 9, 68,300/- 31. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal had not granted reasonable compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities'. Further, it is the functional disability and the percentage of disability ought to have been taken more percentage than the disability assessed. Further the Tribunal had not considered the future prospects when the disability is 27%. It is submitted that on all counts the compensation needs to be enhanced. 32. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that taking into account the evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal has granted the compensation and there are no grounds to enhance the same. 33. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire same material available on record. The compensation amount granted by the Tribunal under the head of 'pain and agony', 'medical expenses', 'incidental expenses' is just and reasonable and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Coming to the 'future medical expenses' , considering the evidence of the Doctor and the injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Coming to the ' loss of income during the laid up period' , this Court is granting an amount of (Rs.9,500x5) Rs.47,500/ . Coming to the 'loss of future income due to permanent disability' , this Court is not able to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the Doctor's evidence is 27% to the whole body, which the Tribunal has rightly considered. However, the Tribunal has not awarded the 'future prospects'. This Court is awarding the 'future prospects' at 40%. Rs.9,500 + 40% (3,800)=Rs.13,300/- and the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,46,380/- (13,300/- x 12 x 15x 27%) under the said head. Then coming to the 'loss of amenities', this Court is granting an amount of Rs.60,000/-. 35. However, the Tribunal has not awarded the 'future prospects'. This Court is awarding the 'future prospects' at 40%. Rs.9,500 + 40% (3,800)=Rs.13,300/- and the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,46,380/- (13,300/- x 12 x 15x 27%) under the said head. Then coming to the 'loss of amenities', this Court is granting an amount of Rs.60,000/-. 35. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another , (2014) 11 SC 178 the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses' 36. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.12,36,980/- under the following heads: 37. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.9,68,300/- to Rs.12,36,980/- and the Insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The delay of 272 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. iii. Respondents/Insurance Company of both the vehicles shall deposit the amount equally within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and the claimant are at liberty to withdraw the amount. iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v. No costs. vi. Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. MFA No.563/2024(arising out of MVC No.12/2018) 38. Aggrieved by the Award passed in MVC No.12/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 39. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence has held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Innova car and the Tata goods vehicle are responsible for the accident and the insurers of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. 40. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant has awarded the compensation as per the table given below: 41. 40. The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant has awarded the compensation as per the table given below: 41. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the claimant is aged about 65 years and because of the injuries sustained by the claimant as per the evidence of the Doctor, the intellectual disability is upto 75%. The Tribunal, considering the fact that he is able to respond and also answered the questions of the Court has considered the disability at 15% and granted the compensation. The learned counsel submits that Doctor's evidence is 75%, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have taken it at 15%. Further, under the heads of loss of income during the laid up period, loss of amenities, the amount that is awarded is on the lower side and no amount is awarded under the head of future medical expenses. Further, this accident has occurred in the year 2016, and the Tribunal has taken Rs.8,000/- as his income and it ought to have taken at Rs.9,500/- per month. Hence, on all these counts, the compensation needs to be enhanced. 42. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and there are no grounds to enhance the same. 43. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The claimant has sustained head injury. Considering the same, under the head of 'pain and suffering' this Court is granting Rs.70,000/- . 'Medical expenses' and 'incidental expenses' the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation and no interference is called for. Coming to the 'future medical expenses' , this Court is granting Rs.20,000/- and taking the income at Rs.9,500/-, this Court is granting Rs.38,000/- (9500x 4) towards 'loss of income during the laid up period' . Towards 'loss of future income', this Court considering the disability of 15% which is rightly considered by the Tribunal granting Rs.1,19,700/- (9,500x12x7x15%). Towards ' loss of amenities', this Court is granting an amount of Rs.50,000/-. and towards future medical expenses' this Court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/-. 45. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another ,(2014) 11 SC 178 the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards ' legal expenses'. 46. and towards future medical expenses' this Court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/-. 45. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another ,(2014) 11 SC 178 the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards ' legal expenses'. 46. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs . 5,62,500/- under the following heads: 47. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.4,54,600/- to Rs.5,62,500/- and the Insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The delay of 272 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. iii. Respondents/Insurance Company of both the vehicles shall deposit the amount equally within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. iv Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv) No costs. v) Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. MFA No.564/2018 (arising out of MVC No.9/2018) 48. Aggrieved by the Award passed in MVC No.9/2018 dated 27.01.2023 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumakuru, claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 49. The Tribunal on the issue of negligence has held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. Innova car and the Tata goods vehicle are responsible for the accident and the insurers of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation and granted the compensation as per the table given below: Head of Compensation Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency for petitioners who are the wife and son of the deceased 3,99,000/- 2. On traditional heads A. Loss of Estate B. Loss of consortium c. Towards funeral expenses 16,500/- 44,000/- 16,500/- Total  Compensation Rs. 4,76,000/- 50. Loss of dependency for petitioners who are the wife and son of the deceased 3,99,000/- 2. On traditional heads A. Loss of Estate B. Loss of consortium c. Towards funeral expenses 16,500/- 44,000/- 16,500/- Total  Compensation Rs. 4,76,000/- 50. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.10,000/- as the income of the deceased and further the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses and that the compensation awarded under other heads is also not just and reasonable and needs enhancement. 51. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just compensation considering all the facts and based on the evidence on record and no enhancement is called for. 52. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case according to the claimant, the deceased was earning Rs.9,000 to Rs.10,000 per month and the Tribunal as there is no other evidence has rightly taken Rs.9,500/- per month. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd i.e. Rs.3,166/-, which comes to Rs.5,32,056/- (6,334x12x7) under the head of 'loss of dependency'. The claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.44,000/- towards ' loss of consortium' and Rs.36,000/- towards ' funeral expenses and loss of estate'. 54. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Mekala Vs. Malathi and Another , (2014) 11 SC 178 the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards ' legal expenses'. 55. Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,22,056/- under the following heads: 56. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed , by enhancing the compensation from an amount of Rs.4,76,000/- to Rs.6,22,056/- and the Insurer of both the vehicles are equally liable to pay the compensation. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. The delay of 272 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. iii. ii. The delay of 272 days is condoned by this court, on the condition that the claimant will not be entitled for the interest, in case of enhancement. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest for the delay period. iii. Respondents/Insurance Company of both the vehicles shall deposit the amount equally within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v. No costs. vi. Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.