JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. 1. Both the owner of the vehicle (for short 'the corporation') as well as claimant preferred these appeals, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.02.2016, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar (for short “the tribunal”), in MVC No.548/2013. Corporation filed in MFA No.5933/2016 challenging negligence and quantum of compensation. Claimant filed appeal in MFA No.7562/2016 for enhancement of compensation. Both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.08.2011, at around 5.00 p.m., the claimant was going on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EB-8553 towards Bangalore side; near Bethani village, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus belonging to corporation bearing registration No.AP-29-Z-288, by its driver. As a result, he sustained fracture of right femur and right medial malleoleous. He underwent treatment and has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% in the right lower limb and 15% to the whole body. The claimant was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident and he was a driver and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. With these reasons, the claimant prayed to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. It appears, the matter was earlier pending before the Small Causes Court at Bengalore and later on it was transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar, on the point of jurisdiction. It appears that the respondent/corporation did not file written statement when the matter was pending before MACT, Kolar. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 13 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-13. Respondent/corporation examined one witness as RW-1. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the claimant as 25 years at the time of the accident, his earning as Rs.5,000/- per month and disability at 10% to the whole body, applied the multiplier as `18' and awarded following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount Pain and sufferings Rs. The Tribunal has assessed the age of the claimant as 25 years at the time of the accident, his earning as Rs.5,000/- per month and disability at 10% to the whole body, applied the multiplier as `18' and awarded following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- Future loss of income Rs. 1,08,000/- Treatment and medical expenses Rs. 27,250/- Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 2,05,250/- 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the claimant as well as corporation. 9. Learned counsel for the corporation submits that the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the motorcycle, who hit against the left side of the bus, indicating that rider of the motorcycle had come on to the wrong side of the road and hit against the bus. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the bus driver. Since the vehicle belonging to claimant was a two- wheeler, the police have falsely registered a case against driver of the bus. 10. The learned Advocate for claimant further contends that looking at the motor vehicle inspection report, the said fact is very clear; even the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. According to the medical records, the age of the claimant was 30 years and the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side. With these reasons, prayed to allow the appeal filed by the corporation. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that, as per the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1, the bus hit against the motorcycle from its right side and due to fall of the vehicle, there was damage to the front side of the motorcycle. Merely because there was no damage mentioned in the motor vehicle inspection report does not mean that the accident did not take place due to head-on collision. He further contends that RW-1 in his cross-examination admits that he was driving the bus at a speed of 80 k.m./h, while the rider of the motorcycle was going ahead of the bus. RW-1 admits the accident and also stated that he was charge sheeted for the accident in question. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/corporation is not tenable. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and prays for enhancement of the compensation. 12. RW-1 admits the accident and also stated that he was charge sheeted for the accident in question. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/corporation is not tenable. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and prays for enhancement of the compensation. 12. Following points arise for consideration: (ii) Whether the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both vehicles? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable amount of compensation? Point Nos.1 and 2: 13. As per the Trial Court records, there is no written statement filed on behalf of the respondent. Undisputedly, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus. The copy of the FIR, complaint, wound certificate, M.V. report and charge sheet are placed on record, as per Exs.P-1 to P-5 and P-8. Both PW-1 and RW- 1 in their respective evidence have stated that the motorcycle was going ahead and the bus was following it. At the spot of accident, there was a collision between both vehicles. Even in the cross-examination, RW-1 who is driver of the bus has stated that the bus hit the motorcycle from its right side. It is true that, there was no damage to the right side of the motorcycle as per Ex.P-3. Therefore, the correctness of Ex.P-3 is doubtful. On that count alone, it cannot be held that the accident was a head on collision. In view of the statements of both PW-1 and RW-1, as well as contents of the charge sheet it can be safely concluded that the bus hit motorcycle on its hind side. There is no material on record to believe that driver of the motorcycle went to the wrong side of the road and hit the front portion of the bus. Therefore, the contentions of the corporation are contrary to the admission of their own employee, and hence are not acceptable. In addition, RW-1 in his evidence admitted that he pleaded guilty before the concerned Court and paid a fine. Contrary to this fact, now corporation cannot contend that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. 14. The injuries sustained by the claimant as stated in Exs.P-6 and P-7 i.e., fracture of Type IIB Sub trochanteric fracture of right femur and displaced fracture of the right medial malleoli. He underwent treatment from 21.08.2011 to 15.09.2011. Contrary to this fact, now corporation cannot contend that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. 14. The injuries sustained by the claimant as stated in Exs.P-6 and P-7 i.e., fracture of Type IIB Sub trochanteric fracture of right femur and displaced fracture of the right medial malleoli. He underwent treatment from 21.08.2011 to 15.09.2011. He was again admitted to the said hospital from 22.11.2012 to 14.02.2013; he underwent surgery due to some complication, which is noted in Ex.P-7. 15. The claimant has not produced any records to prove his age. However, in Ex.P-6 his age is mentioned as 25 years, in Ex.P-7 his age is mentioned as 30 years and in subsequent medical records his age is mentioned as 25 years. Considering the same, the Tribunal has taken age of the claimant as 25 years. The same is required to be accepted. 16. According to the evidence of PW-2, the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability to an extent of 45% to the right lower limb and 15% to the whole body. He further stated that the claimant has to undergo another surgery for which he has to spend Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Learned counsel for the corporation submits that in the second round of admission to the hospital, the said implants were removed, as stated in Ex.P-7. Considering the nature of work he has to do and injury, functional disability was taken at 10% to whole body. It does not call for any interference. 17. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month it is on the lower side. It is true that there is no materials on record to accept the income of the claimant as Rs.9,000/- per month. Following the notional income chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, income of claimant is taken as Rs.6,500/- per month. The suitable multiplier applicable in this case is `18'. On the basis of the said calculations, loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability is assessed. 18. On re-appreciating the materials available on record, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on some of the heads are on the lower side. No amount of compensation was awarded towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'. Hence, the claimant is entitled for enhancement. Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount Pain and sufferings Rs. 18. On re-appreciating the materials available on record, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on some of the heads are on the lower side. No amount of compensation was awarded towards 'loss of income during laid-up period'. Hence, the claimant is entitled for enhancement. Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded: Particulars Amount Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 27,250/- Special diet, conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 30,000/- Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.6,500/- x 3) Rs. 19,500/- Loss of future earning capacity due to disability (Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 18 x 10%) Rs. 1,40,400/- Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 2,97,150/- Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 2,05,250/- Enhancement Rs. 91,900/- Rounded off Rs. 92,000/- 19. The claimant is also entitled for interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative and point Nos.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. 20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : i) MFA No.5933/2016 is dismissed. ii) MFA No.7562/2016 is allowed in part. iii) The judgment and award dated 25 th February 2016, passed in MVC.No.548/2013, by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar, stands modified. iv) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation of Rs.92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization. v) The respondent shall deposit the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. vi) The enhancement is marginal. Therefore, entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification. vii) Whatever the amount deposited by the corporation in MFA No.5933/2016 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. viii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal.