JUDGMENT : UMESH M ADIGA, J. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 06.02.2012 passed by MACT, Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, in MVC.No.339/2009 (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. MFA.No.5248/2012 is filed by the insurer and MFA.CROB.No.113/2012 is filed by the claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2008 at around 5.00 p.m., when the claimant was going by walk near lake of Channapatna road, the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-42-H-3035 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Channapatna and thereafter, he was taken to Mathru Sri Nursing Home, then for higher treatment, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru as well as NIMHANS Hospital. He spent rupees two lakhs towards medical expenses. 5. It is further case of the claimant that at the time of accident he was aged about 25 years, was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. by working in Silk twisting factory as well as agriculture and suffered permanent functional disability. With these reasons, he prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the contentions of the claimant. He further contended that the accident occurred on 01.11.2008 at around 5.00 p.m. and not on 02.11.2008, and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and not due to negligence of the rider of the vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and policy of insurance was in force from 04.06.2008 to 03.06.2009 and hence respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation. With these reasons, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1. 7. Respondent No.2 denied the contentions of the claimant. It stated that the accident occurred on 02.11.2008 at around 5.00 p.m. and complaint was lodged after a delay of three days, i.e., on 05.11.2008 and according to the pleadings, the accident took place on 01.11.2008. Therefore, there is no consistency in respect of date and time of the incident. Just to claim compensation the said vehicle was falsely implicated with the help of owner and rider of the vehicle. Therefore, there is no consistency in respect of date and time of the incident. Just to claim compensation the said vehicle was falsely implicated with the help of owner and rider of the vehicle. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 9. To prove his case, the claimant examined 3 witnesses as PW-1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P68. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.R1. 10. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, and appreciating materials available on record, held that the accident occurred on 01.11.2008 due to the involvement of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal also assessed the age, disability etc., and awarded following amount of compensation: SL.No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1. Expenses towards medical, food, traveling and other expenses 12,000 2. Loss of income during the period of rest 6,000 3. Loss of future amenities 10,000 4. Compensation towards pain and suffering 20,000 5. Compensation towards loss of future income 1,45,800 Total 1,93,800 11. Being aggrieved by the same, both claimant as well as the insurer preferred these appeals. 12. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 13. Learned counsel for the insurer vehemently contends that the medical records show that the claimant was admitted as in-patient in the hospital for treatment on 01.11.2008. However, the enclosures show that accident took place on 02.11.2008. Mother of the claimant lodged the complaint on 05.11.2008, mentioning the date of accident as 02.11.2008. The date of accident mentioned in the prosecution papers as well as in the medical records is not consistent, which creates serious doubt about the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the said vehicle. The Tribunal has not considered these facts and in the impugned judgment, and has rejected the contentions of the insurer, without assigning proper reasons which needs interference by this Court. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 14. MFA.Crob. is filed by the claimant. Learned counsel for claimants contended that in the claim petition, it is specifically mentioned by the claimant that accident took place on 01.11.2008 but due to mistake of the police they have mentioned the date of accident as 02.11.2008. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 14. MFA.Crob. is filed by the claimant. Learned counsel for claimants contended that in the claim petition, it is specifically mentioned by the claimant that accident took place on 01.11.2008 but due to mistake of the police they have mentioned the date of accident as 02.11.2008. Inadvertent mistake of date of accident mentioned in the police records by the complaint who is an illiterate and rustic villager, case of claimants cannot be thrown out of court. It was a bonafide mistake on the part of the police. To prove it the claimant examined PW-2. On the basis of the medical record, and being carried away by the incorrect date mentioned in the complaint, the mistake of date was carried into the charge sheet and its enclosures are therefore, incorrect. Therefore, the said evidence of PW-2 clarified the date of accident. 15. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that owner and rider of the motor cycle in the written statement has stated that the accident had taken place on 01.11.2008 and not on 02.11.2008. The rider of the motor cycle appeared before the Court and pleaded guilty and paid fine, which indicates that the rider of the motor cycle admitted his negligence for causing the accident in question. It also corroborates the contention of the claimant. 16. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the Tribunal by assigning just and proper reasons has rightly upheld the contentions of the claimant and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant properly. The disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are also on lower side. Therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation. 18. The following points emerges for my determination: i. Whether claimant has falsely implicated offending vehicle and mentioned illusory date with a malafide intention to claim compensation from respondents? ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 19. Point No.1: - The facts of the case, narrated above. There are two dates of accident. The medical records shows that accident occurred on 01.11.2008. A criminal case was registered and on investigation charge was filed. ii. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 19. Point No.1: - The facts of the case, narrated above. There are two dates of accident. The medical records shows that accident occurred on 01.11.2008. A criminal case was registered and on investigation charge was filed. The said prosecution papers shows the date of accident occurred on 02.11.2008. PW-1 in his evidence has stated that the accident took place on 01.11.2008 and in his examination-in-chief, he discloses that, in the charge sheet and enclosures, the police has wrongly mentioned the date of accident as 02.11.2008 instead of 01.11.2008. To clarify the same, the claimant examined PW-2 the Head constable No.22 and in his evidence he has stated that, based on the mistake committed in the complaint, the date of accident is mentioned 02.11.2008. He also mentioned the same date in the charge sheet. However, in fact, the accident occurred on 01.11.2008, and he came to know about the said mistake for the first time while entering the witness box in this case, after verification of the medical records. 20. In his thorough examination, PW-2 reiterated the same. He also admitted that he submitted the charge sheet before the JMFC Court. The conduct of PW-2 shows that he was negligent in investigating the case. Had he exercised proper care and caution while submission of the charge sheet, he would have mentioned the correct date of accident in the charge sheet. Merely because the complainant had given wrong date of accident does not mean that he should accept it. When he received Ex.P8 from the concerned hospital, which contained the date of accident on 01.11.2008, he could have verified it and corrected the same while submitting the charge sheet. The negligence of the police shall not come in the way of the claimant to claim compensation. 21. The claimants examined PW-3, who treated the claimant at Mathru Sri hospital, Channapatna. According to the medical records, the claimant had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident held on 01.11.2008. Initially, he was taken to Government Hospital, Channapatna, where he received first aid. 22. The claimant produced Ex.P1 - the order sheet in C.C.No.67/2009, which indicates that rider of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty and paid fine. According to the medical records, the claimant had sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident held on 01.11.2008. Initially, he was taken to Government Hospital, Channapatna, where he received first aid. 22. The claimant produced Ex.P1 - the order sheet in C.C.No.67/2009, which indicates that rider of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty and paid fine. As already stated above all documents pertaining to charge sheet i.e. Exs.3 to 7 reveals that the accident was mistakenly recorded as having occurred on 02.11.2008, which was an error made by PW-2. 23. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate issued by Government Hospital, Channapatna, indicating that the claimant sustained injuries in road traffic accident on 01.11.2008 at around 5.00 p.m. 24. Exs.P9, P11, P14, P58, P59, P60 all the documents corroborate that the accident occurred on 01.11.2008. In view of these record, the claimant proved that accident occurred on 01.11.2008 and not on02.11.2008. 25. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of both the parties and rightly held that occurred on 01.11.2008 due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by it rider. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings. It is not case of respondents that policy of insurance or driving license were in force only up to 01.11.2008. hence, wrong date was given. There are no malafide intention of claimant to give wrong date of accident to police, Hence, contentions of insurer is not tenable. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in favour of the claimant. Point No.2 : 26. The Tribunal on the basis of the available evidence, assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month, age of the claimant as 23 years, applied the multiplier as `18' and functional disability as 22.5% to the whole body and awarded the compensation under different heads. 27. The accident took place during the year 2008. As such, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. Claimant had sustained fracture of L1 vertebra and fracture of shaft right radium. He underwent surgery. The accident took place during the year 2008. As such, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Following the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. Claimant had sustained fracture of L1 vertebra and fracture of shaft right radium. He underwent surgery. Thereafter, PW-3 doctor, who treated him and also assessed the disability, has stated that the claimant has suffered from permanent disability to an extent of 22.5% to the whole body, this is accepted by the Tribunal and there are no reasons to interfere in the said finding. The compensation awarded under other heads are on the lower side, which requires to be enhanced. 28. Considering the materials available on record, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 50,000 Medical expenses 25,000 Attendant charges, special diet and conveyance charges 25,000 Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.4,500/- x 4) 18,000 Loss of future earning capacity due to disability (Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 18x 22.5%) 2,18,700 Loss of amenities and future unhappiness 30,000 Total 3,66,700 Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement- Rounded off- 1,93,800 1,72,900 Rs.1,73,000/- 29. Thus, the claimant is entitled for interest @ 6%per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. 30. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. 31. For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) MFA.No.5248/2012 is dismissed and MFA.Crob.No.113/2012 is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 6 th February 2012, passed in MVC.No.339/2009, by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., M.A.C.T., Ramanagara, stands modified; iii) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,73,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The deposit and release of the amount is as ordered by the Tribunal. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.Draw award accordingly. iv) The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. v) The deposit and release of the amount is as ordered by the Tribunal. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement.Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.