JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. 1. Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Member, MACT, XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short `Tribunal') in MVC No.2289/2018. 2. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, therefore they are taken up together for disposal. 3. Though the appeals are slated for admission, with consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, they are taken up for final disposal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 5. MFA.No.3620/2020 is filed by the owner of the bus - BMTC challenging the quantum and its liability and MFA.No.5313/2020 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.04.2017 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was trying to board the bus (BMTC) bearing registration No.KA-57-F-824, at Mariyappanapalya junction. Before the petitioner could board the bus, driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to local hospital wherein he took treatment as in-patient from 01.04.2017 to 04.04.2017. He was shifted to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 05.04.2017 to 08.04.2017; He underwent surgery and after discharge from the hospital, he took follow up treatment. He had sustained fracture of coronoid process of ulna and fracture of Head of radius. He has suffered permanent disability. He was an advocate practicing in Bengaluru and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. He was aged about 42 years at the time of accident. With these reasons, the petitioner prayed to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 7. The respondent - BMTC filed its written statement denying the petition averments. Further, it has contended that petitioner in collusion with police and others, falsely implicated the offending bus, though it was not at all involved in the accident. The bus number was furnished to the police after two months from the date of alleged accident. These factors create doubt in the case of the petitioner. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 9. The bus number was furnished to the police after two months from the date of alleged accident. These factors create doubt in the case of the petitioner. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 9. The petitioner to prove his case, examined 3 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 28 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-28. The respondent-BMTC has examined 2 witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 10. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, awarded the following amount of compensation: 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the BMTC. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent seriously argued in line with grounds of the appeal. He contends that the bus belonging to respondent was falsely implicated in this case just to get wrongful gain. Claimant must have sustained injury in some other incident. In collusion with the concerned, he filed a false case against the driver of the bus. There is a delay in lodging the complaint, as well as reporting the vehicle number to police. These facts supports the contentions of the respondent. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition, by allowing the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that immediately after the incident, claimant went to a local hospital and thereafter was shifted to Maharaja Agrasena hospital, wherein intimation was sent to the concerned police station to register a case, but police did not register the case that cannot be considered as delay in lodging the complaint. 14. The learned counsel for claimant further contended that the medical records reveal that he sustained injury in a vehicle accident. The complaint was registered by the petitioner. At that time, he gave the route number of the bus. Subsequently, one of his friend who was traveling in the same bus, informed him the vehicle number, which he had noted in his diary. On that basis, he gave the vehicle number to police. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that, if really claimant intended to falsely implicate vehicle of respondent, then he would have given any of the vehicle number belonging to respondent at the time of filing the complaint instead of giving the route number. On that basis, he gave the vehicle number to police. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that, if really claimant intended to falsely implicate vehicle of respondent, then he would have given any of the vehicle number belonging to respondent at the time of filing the complaint instead of giving the route number. There was no need for him to wait for one and half month to give the vehicle number. 15. It is further contended by the claimant that on the basis of the complaint lodged, police have investigated the matter and registered a criminal case against the driver of the offending bus and he was charge sheeted. The driver of the bus did not challenge the said charge sheet. Therefore, the respondent-BMTC cannot deny the accident. The medical records reveal that, on the date of accident, claimant was admitted in the hospital. These facts supports the case of the claimant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the BMTC. 16. There is some substance in the arguments advanced by the claimant. Exs.P-27 and P-28 reveals that medico-legal case was registered when the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 01.04.2017. According to Ex.P-27, police received the intimation on 01.04.2017 at 9.50 p.m., which is noted in Ex.P-27. Ex.P-28 also corroborate the same. The concerned police failed to register the FIR after visiting the hospital and recording the statement. Therefore, non-registration of FIR of a cognizable offence by the concerned police is dereliction of duty by them. Hence, delay in registering FIR does not create any doubt in the case of claimant. 17. It is true that FIR was registered on 02.04.2017 i.e., next day of the accident. The statement of one Shafiullah Khan recorded by the police reveals that, on that day, he was also traveling in the said bus. He knows the claimant and both of them regularly traveling on the same route, therefore he was acquainted with claimant. On the date of the accident, the claimant fell while boarding the bus due to the driver’s negligence. He did not meet claimant for some days and when he met him and informed him the registration number of the offending bus, the claimant requested him to report the incident to the police. Therefore, he visited the police station and gave statement on 21.06.2017. 18. He did not meet claimant for some days and when he met him and informed him the registration number of the offending bus, the claimant requested him to report the incident to the police. Therefore, he visited the police station and gave statement on 21.06.2017. 18. Investigating officer examined relevant witnesses and submitted charge sheet against driver of the bus. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending bus is not in dispute. The driver of the said bus had not challenged the said charge sheet and its enclosures on the ground that false case was registered against him. It has also come in the evidence that a departmental enquiry was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for causing the accident in question. If respondent knew that it was a false case, there was no need for it to hold an enquiry against the driver of the bus. 19. During investigation of the criminal case, police sent a notice as per Ex.P-5 to BMTC under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act. That notice was replied by the competent officer of the respondent, copy of which is at Ex.P-6. The respondent itself certified that the bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-0824 caused the accident at Marappanapalya bus stand and on that day, Siddagangaiah, son of Chikkananjappa, was the driver of the said vehicle. The circumstances under which it gave such letter is not explained by the respondent-BMTC. It is an admission of the respondent about involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. These are also circumstances to believe the case of the claimant. 20. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence on record in detail and came to right conclusion. On re-appreciation of materials on record, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding. 21. Undisputedly, the claimant is an advocate practicing at Bengaluru, and aged about 42 years at the time of the accident. It is not his case that he left the practice. He has stated that he is unable to do his profession. Fracture of radius and ulna does not lead to 100% disability or affect his profession as contended. 22. Claimant contended that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. No positive evidence has been produced by him to prove the same. It is not his case that he is an income-tax assessee. Fracture of radius and ulna does not lead to 100% disability or affect his profession as contended. 22. Claimant contended that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. No positive evidence has been produced by him to prove the same. It is not his case that he is an income-tax assessee. If his contention is accepted, then his earnings per annum was Rs.4 lakh. Therefore, the said contention is not believable. He is a qualified advocate and practicing in law. His income cannot be considered on par with income of a coolie. Therefore, his notional income is taken as Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, the claimant might not be in a position to attend to his work at least for a period of two to three months. The same shall be considered while calculating the loss of income during laid up period. 23. The doctor - PW-2, in his evidence has stated that the said fractures are not united, that resulted in continuance of inconvenience, discomfort, loss of amenities and unhappiness. Considering all these facts and also reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, which requires enhancement. 24. For the aforesaid discussions, the claimant is entitled to following amount of compensation : 25. The Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, held that due to contributory negligence of claimant to an extent of 15%, accident occurred. He could have taken proper care while boarding the bus. Admittedly, the claimant was a passenger in the bus. His contention is that, before he could board the bus, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle, because of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. Respondent did not make any such contention. It did not get any admission in the cross examination of PW-1. In the absence of materials, the Tribunal erred in holding that claimant also contributed for causing accident in question. 26. On re-appreciating the materials, it does not appear that there was any negligence of the claimant while boarding the bus. Any passenger while boarding the bus will be of a belief that driver would not move the bus till all the passengers would enter the bus. Contrary to the same, in the present case, the driver of the bus moved the bus while the claimant was boarding the bus. Any passenger while boarding the bus will be of a belief that driver would not move the bus till all the passengers would enter the bus. Contrary to the same, in the present case, the driver of the bus moved the bus while the claimant was boarding the bus. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that claimant had contributed for the accident in question. The said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and hence, needs to be set aside. Accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the bus. 27. The claimant is also entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of its realisation, excluding the amount awarded towards future medical expenses. The respondent is liable to pay the amount of compensation. 28. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i) MFA.No.5313/2020 filed by the claimant is allowed in part and MFA.No.3620/2020 filed by the Corporation is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 07.11.2019, passed by the XVI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru, in MVC No.2289/2018, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, excluding the amount awarded towards future medical expenses. iv) The respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The claimant is an advocate, therefore, there may not be chances of exploitation. Therefore, the entire enhanced amount of compensation shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification. vi) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.