JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 1 on call. 2. The present appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act, 1988”) is directed against the impugned judgment & order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Member No. 3, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 2002/2016 for enhancement and modification of compensation award. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2016 at about 4.30 P.M while the appellant was allegedly waiting on the road side at G.S. Road, Khanapara opposite Sani Mandir, he was suddenly hit by a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BV-0635 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) which was allegedly ridden by its rider in a very rash and negligent manner for which the appellant was grievously injured and was taken by the police to the nearest hospital for treatment. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged and a case was registered under section 279/338 of IPC against the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal which after hearing, the Tribunal by judgment & order dated 26.11.2018 awarded compensation of an amount of Rs. 6,33,300/- (rupees six lakh thirty three thousand three hundred) only with interest at 7.5 % P.A. from the date of filing till its realization to the appellant. It was further directed that the Insurance Company shall release only 50% of the awarded amount with interest in favour of the claimant and the rest 50% would have to be borne by the claimant/injured himself because he is found to have been negligent for which the subject accident occurred. Aggrieved by the quantum of the said awarded amount and the direction as regards contributory negligence, the appellant preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in law in not assessing the loss of income while considering the compensation and as such the awarded compensation is required to be enhanced. 4. Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in law in not assessing the loss of income while considering the compensation and as such the awarded compensation is required to be enhanced. He further draws attention of this Court to paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment & order in order to buttress the aforesaid contention by demonstrating from the chart contained in the said paragraph to show that against serial no. 1 under the head “Loss of Income” is blank. 5. He further submits that though the appellant has clearly stated in his evidence that while he was standing in the road in question, he was hit by the offending vehicle which suddenly came in a rash and negligent manner. He accordingly submits that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the appellant was negligent is bereft of any material or evidence whatsoever. He further submits that though the respondent Insurance Company exhibited one G.D. Entry as exhibit-B, to show that the accident occurred while the appellant was crossing the road, the same is not a substantial piece of evidence and hence reliance upon the same by the Tribunal in order to hold the appellant to have contributed negligence is erroneous and perverse. He accordingly submits that the appellant is entitled to the 100% of the awarded amount. 6. Per Contra, Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent/ Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has considered all the evidences and materials and upon analyzing the same has awarded the compensation by the impugned judgment & order under appeal and the same being fair and just warrants no interference from this Appellate Court. He further submits that the loss of income has also been assessed and hence no enhancement on account of the same is warranted. He further submits that the G.D. Entry exhibited through defence witness no. 1 establishes that the appellant was crossing the road while being hit and therefore the findings of the Tribunal as regards the appellants contributory negligence being based on evidence, the 100% awarded amount as claimed in this appeal ought not be allowed. In support of the aforesaid contention he cites the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Rahimuddin Hussain vs. Chola Mandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 6 GLR 746. 7. In support of the aforesaid contention he cites the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Rahimuddin Hussain vs. Chola Mandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 6 GLR 746. 7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsels for the contesting parties and have perused the materials available on record and have also considered the citation cited at the bar. 8. It appears that the injured is a professional driver who was hit by the offending vehicle in question in the public road on 28.03.2016. It further appears that the injured was aged 47 years at the time of the accident. It further appears that the appellant filed the MAC case under section 166 read with section 140 of the MV Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of injury sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident in question due to alleged rash and negligent driving of the subject offending vehicle. Thereafter, the Tribunal framed the following two issues for consideration which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “(I) Whether the injured Khalilur Rahman sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.03.2014 at about 4.30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of a motor cycle bearing No. AS-01-BV-0635? (II) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if yes, to what extent and from whom?” 9. Thereafter the appellant examined himself as PW-1 along with his wife Manowara Begum as PW-2 and Sujata Hazarika as PW-3. On the other hand, the respondent Insurance Company examined one Sarvesh Suman as DW-1. It appears that after closing of evidence and hearing of parties, the Tribunal directed an amount of Rs. 6,33,300/- as compensation as stated above. Relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “11. Now, from having perused the evidence of witnesses together with the documents, it appears that a vehicular accident took place on 28.3.2016 at about 4.30 pm at GS road, opposite Sani Mandir wherein one Khalilur Rahman a pedestrian was found to have sustained injury because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of a motor cycle bearing No. AS-01-BV-0635. Now, from having perused the evidence of witnesses together with the documents, it appears that a vehicular accident took place on 28.3.2016 at about 4.30 pm at GS road, opposite Sani Mandir wherein one Khalilur Rahman a pedestrian was found to have sustained injury because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of a motor cycle bearing No. AS-01-BV-0635. The evidence as it appears go to show that the occurrence took place on 28.03.2016 when Khalilur Rahman was trying to cross the road, he was knocked down by the motor cycle which was driven in a very rash and negligent manner. Admittedly the vehicle was duly insured with the Op Insurance company and the driver of the vehicle was having valid driving licence. There is practically no legal impediment which debars the claimant from getting any compensation. 12. But the dispute arose as to whether the occurrence took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle or not. In support of his plea the Op insurance company examined one Sarvesh Suman as DW-1. It is the contention of DW-1 that the claimant has not submitted any extract copy of GDE or charge sheet to show that the occurrence took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle. In support of his claim he has submitted the certified extract copy of GDE No. 863 of dated 28.03.2016 and upon perusal goes to show that on 28.03.16 at about 4.20pm when the motor cycle bearing No. AS-01-BV-0635 was driven by one Vivek Anand Jha from Khanapara towards Six Mile, a man was found to have cross over the road without taking any care of the traffic and got injury because of the turtling of the motor cycle. The statement as submitted by DW-1 as Exbt-C also supported the contention of the GDE. Admittedly the claimant has not submitted any police report or charge sheet. The occurrence took place on 28.3.2016 and the case was filed only on 15.05.2016 i.e. after a period of 1 and ½ months. So, taking into the totality of the evidence together with the conduct of the claimant, it appears to me that there has some sort of negligence on the part of the injured pedestrian himself which can be determined at 50%. So, taking into the totality of the evidence together with the conduct of the claimant, it appears to me that there has some sort of negligence on the part of the injured pedestrian himself which can be determined at 50%. A pedestrian will cross the road ought to have notice the vehicle plying on the road and to gauge him to see whether he can cross the road within a stipulated time so as to make him free from danger of being hit by the vehicle. On the other hand, it is the duty of the driver of the vehicle also to see whether the road used by him is free from any hindrance. He should know where to use brake and where to open and to change gear or using clutches. So, the attending case posed a picture that the occurrence took place because of negligence contributed by both the sides and accordingly the claimant is entitled to get 50% of the awarded amount. Quant um of compensation: 13. It is the case of the claimant that he was admitted in GNRC, Six mile and subsequently the treatment was done at MMCH and finally at GMCH. The discharge certificate issued by GMCH shows that he was admitted on 11.04.2016 and was discharged on 12.04.2016. Diagnosis was done regarding head injury and subsequently he was admitted on 21.04.2016 for the diagnosis of right FTP chronic SDH. Accordingly treatment was given by right parietal brass hole and evacuation of SDH on 25.04.2016. He claimed that he sustained the disability to the extent of 60% of left side hemiparesis and his functional disability however occurred to the extent of 40% as per the evidence of PW-3 which is however found justified. He has submitted medical bill amounting to Rs. 81,500/- which is found supportive with the case in hand together with the nature of injuries. He has claimed that he is a professional driver and is aged about 49 years and he has submitted the DL which authorizes him to drive MCWG, PSV bus, transport and LMV-GV. So, he being a professional driver can earn a sum of Rs. 7000/- per month. So, loss of income would come to Rs. 40% of Rs. 7000/- = Rs. 2800/-. So, total loss of income would come to Rs. 2800 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 4,36,800/-. 14. So, he being a professional driver can earn a sum of Rs. 7000/- per month. So, loss of income would come to Rs. 40% of Rs. 7000/- = Rs. 2800/-. So, total loss of income would come to Rs. 2800 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 4,36,800/-. 14. Having considered all these aspects, the following compensation has been assessed: S. No. Heads of Claim Tribunal Amount (Rs) 1. Loss of income 2. Medical Expenses (actual expenditure) 81,500/- (i) Medicines (ii) Hospital charges (iii) Attendant charges (iv) Special diet (v) Transportation 3. Pain and suffering (Head injury) (hemmiparesis) 25,000/- 15,000/- 4. Disability 40% = 2800 x 12 x 13 4,36,800/- 5. Loss of amenities 50,000/- 6. Reduction of life expectancy Nil 7. Diet and nutrition 25,000/- 8. Loss due to disfigurement Nil TOTAL 6,33,300/- ORDER: 15. In the result, the claim of the claimant is allowed to the extent of Rs. 6,33,300/- (Rupees six lakh thirty three thousand three hundred) only carrying interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. 16. The OP insurance company is directed to release the 50% of the awarded amount with interest in favour of the claimant within 1 (one) month from the date of this order to this Tribunal for onward disbursement to the claimant in time. The rest 50% would have to be borne by the claimant injured himself because he is found to have negligent contributed by him for causing the accident.” 10. It appears from the above that the Tribunal has clearly taken note of the income of the appellant and assessed the loss of income which is reflected at Serial No. 4 in the chart in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment & order as extracted herein above. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the loss of income has not been assessed by the Tribunal is totally misconceived. However, it appears that while assessing the loss of income the Tribunal has not taken into account the loss of income of the appellant while he was undergoing treatment. In the case of Md. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the loss of income has not been assessed by the Tribunal is totally misconceived. However, it appears that while assessing the loss of income the Tribunal has not taken into account the loss of income of the appellant while he was undergoing treatment. In the case of Md. Rahimuddin Hussain (Supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , has laid down the following heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment. (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss off prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).” 11. Since no compensation as regards loss of earning during the period of treatment is awarded to the appellant, to that extent, the impugned judgment & order of the Tribunal is liable to be modified by directing enhancement of the awarded compensation. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, fairly concedes for enhancing compensation for 3 months under the said Head. It is obvious from the evidence that the appellant could not perform his job during the period of treatment and therefore has suffered loss of earning during such period. It is further evident from the aforesaid judgment & order that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month. In view of the same, in the interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 21,000/- for 3(three) months (Rs. 7,000x 3= Rs. 21,000) against the period while he was undergoing treatment can be directed against the Head “Loss of Income” during the period of treatment. 12. Ordered accordingly. 13. This takes me to the next argument of the appellant as regards his entitlement of the 100% of the awarded amount. 21,000/- for 3(three) months (Rs. 7,000x 3= Rs. 21,000) against the period while he was undergoing treatment can be directed against the Head “Loss of Income” during the period of treatment. 12. Ordered accordingly. 13. This takes me to the next argument of the appellant as regards his entitlement of the 100% of the awarded amount. It appears from the evidence of the appellant himself as PW-1 that he has deposed before the Tribunal that on 28.03.2016 at about 4.30 PM he was waiting on the road side at G.S. Road, Khanapara when suddenly an offending motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01-BV-0635 which was ridden by its rider in a very rash and negligent manner hit him from behind as a result of which he was injured grievously in person, specifically head injury. During cross-examination he clarified that he does not remember the registration No. of the vehicle and also the date of the accident. He further denied the suggestion made by the respondent/ Insurance Company that he was hit while he was trying to cross the road by running. He further clarified that he has not submitted the copy of the G.D. extract and the Charge-sheet before the Tribunal. He also denied the suggestion that the occurrence took place because of his negligence. It further appears that the respondent Insurance Company through DW-1 exhibited one G.D. Exhibit being Exhibit No. B in support of the defence that the alleged accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the appellant. It further appears that during cross-examination, the said defence witness clarified that he does not have any personal knowledge about the mode and manner of the occurrence of the accident and that he is not the author of the G.D. Exhibit. It further appears from the statement submitted by DW-1 which is exhibited as Exhibit-C that the same supports the contention of the G.D. Entry. 14. It is a trite law that the standard of proof required in a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is much below than that required in a Criminal or Civil case and the claimant has to establish his case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In other words, the Tribunal is not expected to adopt the nicety of a Criminal or Civil case. In other words, the Tribunal is not expected to adopt the nicety of a Criminal or Civil case. However, the claimant has to probabalize his claim by adducing some evidence based on which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1354 , wherein the Apex Court held that the Accident Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and person liable do not escape liability merely because of some doubt and some obscurity thereof, and that the Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. In other words, the Court is required to take broad view of the whole matter. 15. In the present case, it appears from the G.D. extract exhibited and proved during trial that the appellant was crossing the road by running while being hit. That being so, the finding of the Tribunal as regards the appellant being negligent cannot be found fault with. Hence, the finding and the direction of the Tribunal holding the appellant entitled only to 50% of the awarded amount stands affirmed. 16. In view of the above, the appellant is entitled to a total amount of compensation of Rs. 21,000/- (rupees twenty one thousand) only. In such view of the matter the enhancement amount of Rs. 21,000/- is to be paid by the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company in addition to the awarded amount as directed under the impugned judgment & order. 17. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this appeal is partly allowed. The respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation before the Registry of this Court within a period of 3(three) months from today. 18. It is needless to be clarified that the 50% of the awarded amount as directed under the impugned judgment & order, if not already deposited and or paid by the respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company, the same shall also be deposited along with the enhanced amount of compensation before the Registry of this Court within the aforesaid time period granted by this Order. 19. 19. On such deposit, the Registry will disburse the said amount in favour of the appellant on his due identification by his learned Counsel. After such disbursal, the case records be returned. No order as to costs. 20. The MAC appeal is accordingly disposed of.