JUDGMENT : Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 04.07.2012, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hangal, in MVC No.156/2009 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tribunal’), questioning dismissal of claim petition. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.06.2008 at about 8.00 p.m., near the land of Chandrappa Yaligar, in between Shiggoan-Hanamarahalli, on the road, when the claimant was returning from Shiggoan after completion of his work, on a motorcycle bearing temporary registration No.KA-31/1645, at that time, the driver of Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-27/T-2146 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and came from hind side (back side) and hit the claimant’s motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the claimant was dismissed, on the reason that the brother of the claimant was not examined in the case and the damage caused to the motorcycle on front side, but the tractor hit the motorcycle from back side. Therefore, on these reasons suspected involvement of the tractor and trailer and dismissed the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the accident took place in night time. Therefore, when the claimant was alone riding the motorcycle, at that time, the motorcycle of the claimant was hit by the tractor from backside and driver of tractor ran away along with vehicle. Therefore, he could not notice the number of tractor. Hence, the same is not mentioned in the complaint. Further submitted that just because there is delay in lodging complaint, is not ground to suspect the claim petition. But the Tribunal without considering these reasons has dismissed the claim petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/Insurance company and owner of the tractor and trailer have justified judgment and award passed by the tribunal. Thus, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. In the present case, the accident is caused on 22.06.2008 at night 8.00 p.m. It is allegation against the driver of tractor and trailer that, the driver of tractor had dashed the motorcycle from hind side and it was night time. Therefore, the claimant could not notice the number of tractor. Hence, quite naturally the same is not reflected in the complaint. Therefore, the claimant could not notice the number of tractor. Hence, quite naturally the same is not reflected in the complaint. Just because, the number of tractor is not mentioned in the complaint, that itself is not a ground to suspect the factum of accident caused in the night hours. The accident is caused on 22.06.2008, but complaint before the police is lodged on 29.06.2008. 7. There is delay of seven days in lodging the complaint. Just because there is delay in lodging the complaint, it always cannot be a ground to suspect the claim petition. Soon after the accident the paramount thing is to get medical treatment rather than searching the offending vehicle and lodging prompt complaint before the police. In this regard reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others, reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693. 8. The delay in lodging the complaint is to be considered on the facts and circumstances in each case. Therefore, when considering the facts of this case, admittedly the accident is caused during night at 08.00 p.m. As per the claimant the tractor hit the motorcycle from hind side. Therefore, there could not be chances of noting down the number of the tractor in the darkness. Moreover, the claimant had sustained accident injuries. Therefore, it is not possible to note down the number of tractor so as to mention in the complaint. Though there is delay of seven days in lodging the complaint and if really the claimant had intention to manipulate the complaint, then he could have stated the number of tractor in the complaint though it is lodged after seven days. But the very fact that though the complaint was lodged after seven days, but without mentioning the number of tractor, which itself goes to prove that the complaint filed is genuine one. When the accident occurred, the claimant would say the nature of vehicle that is stated in the complaint that the tractor had hit him from behind. Therefore, in this regard though there is delay of seven days in lodging the complaint before the police, the same cannot be suspected regarding occurrence of accident. 9. When the accident occurred, the claimant would say the nature of vehicle that is stated in the complaint that the tractor had hit him from behind. Therefore, in this regard though there is delay of seven days in lodging the complaint before the police, the same cannot be suspected regarding occurrence of accident. 9. Furthermore, the medical records i.e., case sheet and summary sheet, Ex.P.20 and Ex.P.21 respectively, show that the claimant was admitted to hospital with a history of road traffic accident occurred on 22.06.2008 at 08.00 p.m. Soon after the accident the claimant had admitted to hospital and that is reflected in the above said medical records that the claimant was admitted to the hospital with a history of road traffic accident. 10. Further, upon the complaint lodged and FIR is registered, the police have conducted investigation and searched the offending tractor and laid charge sheet against the driver of the tractor. The driver of the tractor had paid fine amount before the Court of Magistrate after admitting he is guilty of rash and negligent driving and caused the accident. Therefore, the cumulative effect on appreciation of evidence on record has been discussed, it is proved that the claimant has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident as he was hit by the tractor. 11. The tribunal found fault with the claim petition on the reason that the younger brother of the claimant was not examined. Just because younger brother of the claimant was not examined is not a ground to suspect the claim petition. According to the police, the younger brother of the claimant has furnished the number of tractor to the police. In this regard, just because younger brother is not examined is not a ground to suspect the claim petition. In this regard reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and Others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2019 SC 994 , wherein it is held that ‘non-examination of witness per se cannot be treated as fatal to the claim set up before the tribunal’. Therefore, just because the younger brother of the claimant who has given offending vehicle number is not examined is not fatal to the claimant’s case. 12. Therefore, just because the younger brother of the claimant who has given offending vehicle number is not examined is not fatal to the claimant’s case. 12. Further, another reason assigned by the tribunal for dismissing the claim petition is that as per MVI report Ex.P.4 and P.5, only front side of motorcycle was damaged but not backside. This is the main reason assigned by the tribunal for dismissing the claim petition. The tribunal has lost sight of visualizing the manner in which the accident was caused. Based on the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the motorcycle and tractor were both moving in the same direction. The tractor was coming behind the motorcycle. The tractor is a bigger vehicle and motorcycle is a smaller vehicle, wherein the tractor being a bigger vehicle has dashed the backside portion of the motorcycle; if it is jointly dashed, then there could be chances of causing damage to the backside of the motorcycle, but in this case certainly motorcycle would dash to any other object on the front side either to the tree or to the stone and the motorcycle certainly would fall on the ground. 13. Under these circumstances, there could be chances of damage to the motorcycle to the front side. This fact is not appreciated and not visualized by the tribunal while appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, in this regard the appreciation of evidence made by the tribunal for the reasons discussed on these points is perverse in nature. Therefore, the tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition. Hence, it is proved that the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside. 14. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant has suffered the following injuries. “Fracture of left tibia involving both condyles and the injury is grievous in nature.” 15. PW.2 is the doctor who has stated that the claimant has suffered 40-45% permanent physical disability. 14. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant has suffered the following injuries. “Fracture of left tibia involving both condyles and the injury is grievous in nature.” 15. PW.2 is the doctor who has stated that the claimant has suffered 40-45% permanent physical disability. Considering the factors that the claimant had suffered fracture to the left knee, it is just and proper to take 10% of functional disability, by applying the law laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 . 16. The accident is caused on 22.06.2008. The claimant was an agriculturist and LIC agent. Income proof is not produced by the claimant. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, notional income of Rs.4,250/- per month is to be taken into consideration for the accident year 2008, which is recognized by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. The claimant was aged 41 years at the time of accident. Therefore, appropriate applicable multiplier is 14. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is hereby assessed and quantified as Rs.71,400/- (Rs.4,250 x 10% x12 x 14). 17. Further, a sum of Rs.12,750/- is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period for a period of three months (Rs.4,250/- x 3 months). 18. Considering the injuries sustained, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities are awarded. The medical bills would prove that the claimant has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses. Considering the same and the injuries sustained by him, Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and hospital charges. Further, Rs.6,000/- towards incidental expenses like food, nourishment, travelling, attendant charges, etc., is awarded. 19. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering. 20,000 2. Loss of amenities. 20,000 3. Medical expenses and hospital charges. 10,000 4. Loss of income during laid up period and medical treatment period. 12,750 5. Incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, conveyance, etc.,. 6,000 6. Loss of future earning capacity. 71,400 Total: 1,40,150 20. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering. 20,000 2. Loss of amenities. 20,000 3. Medical expenses and hospital charges. 10,000 4. Loss of income during laid up period and medical treatment period. 12,750 5. Incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, conveyance, etc.,. 6,000 6. Loss of future earning capacity. 71,400 Total: 1,40,150 20. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,40,150/-, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 21. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 04.07.2012, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hangal, in MVC No.156/2009, is hereby set aside. iii) The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,40,150/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment and award to the tribunal. vi) No order as to costs. vii) Draw award accordingly.