JUDGMENT : C M JOSHI, J. Heard the learned counsel Sri O. Mahesh, appearing for appellant, Insurance Company in MFA No.2413/2014. None has appeared on behalf of respondents and appellant/petitioner in MFA No.3387/2014. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in MVC No.819/2011 dated 24.10.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV, Davangere, the Insurance Company is before this Court in MFA No.2413/2014 seeking to set aside the same and the petitioner is before this Court in MFA No.3387/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, when on 19.01.2011 the petitioner along with his wife was going on a motorcycle bearing No.KA.20.EC 7278 on Honnali- Nyamathi road, at about 3.00 p.m., the Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.KA.17.A.9594 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle, resulting in both the petitioner and his wife falling down and sustaining injuries. They were taken to Government Hospital, Honnali. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to C.G. Hospital, Davangere, where the petitioner was inpatient from 19.01.2011 to 15.2.2011. Contending that the petitioner had sustained the fracture of left femur, which has resulted in a disability, he claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the Tata Ace vehicle. The petitioner has also contended that he was working as coolie and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and aged about 23 years and he has suffered permanent disability. 4 . On being served with the notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not file any written statement. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company filed written statement denying petition averments. It was alleged that the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. The Insurance Company also contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. It was also alleged that petitioner was riding the motorcycle without following the traffic rules and therefore, there was negligence on the part of the petitioner also. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P10 were marked in the evidence. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed appropriate issues. The petitioner was examined as PW1. The Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and Exhibits P1 to P10 were marked in the evidence. Respondent No.3 examined its Legal Officer as RW1 and the ARTO as RW2 and exhibits R1 to R4 were marked in the evidence. 6. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.69,000/- under the following heads: P ain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 22,500/- Attendant and other misc. expenses Rs. 7,500/- Loss of income during laid up period Rs. 9,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 69,000/- 7. Being aggrieved by the same, both the Insurance Company and the petitioner are before this Court in these appeals. 8. On being served with the notices, the rival parties have appeared before this Court, except respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the Tata Ace vehicle. 9. The learned counsel Sri O. Mahesh, appearing for the Insurance Company, who is appellant in MFA No.2413/2014 submits that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner since, he has admitted in his evidence that it is a head on collision between two vehicles and that he has not given satisfactory answer that he was possessing the valid driving licence to drive two wheeler at the relevant point of time. It is contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the contributory negligence as contended by the Insurance Company and that the petitioner himself was unable to establish that he was equipped with the driving licence to drive his two wheeler. He further submits that the driver of the offending Tata Ace vehicle was not having a licence to drive a goods vehicle i.e., transport vehicle but he was only possessing the LMV driving licence and as such, there is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he seek for indulgence of this Court. 10. There being no arguments on behalf of the petitioner before this Court, the Court has looked into the records. 11. A perusal of the appeal memo of the petitioner show that main contention of the petitioner is about the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the medical evidence which is available on record. There being no arguments on behalf of the petitioner before this Court, the Court has looked into the records. 11. A perusal of the appeal memo of the petitioner show that main contention of the petitioner is about the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in the light of the medical evidence which is available on record. The petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence in a proper way. Therefore, there is need for enhancement of the compensation amount under all the heads as permissible under law. 12. A perusal of the records would reveal that on 19.01.2011, the petitioner along with his wife was traveling on his motorcycle bearing No.KA.20.EC 7278 and while he was riding the same on Honnali- Nyamathi road at about 3 p.m., a Tata Ace vehicle came from opposite direction and dashed to it. The petitioner and his wife fell down and they were shifted to the hospital and they were treated there. A case was registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No.16/2011 and the police, after investigation filed a chargesheet as per Ex.P5. It is relevant to note that the complaint was lodged by none else than the petitioner himself, while he was taking treatment in the Government Hospital at Davangere. It is also relevant to note that the spot mahazar which is at Ex.P2 shows that the accident took place on the road. The exact place of the accident on the road is not discernible from the spot mahazar. It is pertinent to note that the chargesheet has been filed against the Tata Ace vehicle driver only. The Investigating Officer did not find any material as against the petitioner herein to hold that he has also contributed negligence. Further, either the petitioner or respondent No.3, Insurance Company have not produced the sketch of the spot of the accident. When the chargesheet is being disputed by the Insurance Company on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to produce the spot sketch of the accident. In the absence of any spot sketch of the accident, it is not possible to hold that the action of the Investigating Officer to indict the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle alone cannot be found fault with. In the absence of any spot sketch of the accident, it is not possible to hold that the action of the Investigating Officer to indict the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle alone cannot be found fault with. In that view of the matter, the police papers and the other documentary evidence which are available on record is not favourable to the Insurance Company. 13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would point out that the testimony of PW1 show that it was a head on collision and therefore, the contributory negligence has to be inferred by the Court. The cross- examination of PW1 though show that the accident occurred due to head on collision, there is no evidence that the accident took place at the center of the road. Therefore, simply, on the basis of the admission of PW1, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner also. 14. The cross-examination of PW1 also shows that he had obtained licence to drive a two wheeler and the licence was got by him through Auto Rickshaw Drivers Union. He says that he did not visit any RTO and he has not given any trial. It is pertinent to note that, even if we hold that there was no licence held by PW1, unless, it is established that there was an contributory negligence on his part, it cannot be said that there was any negligence by him. Mere non-possession of a driving licence to drive a two wheeler cannot be inferred to hold that there was contributory negligence by him. If at all, if he did not have a driving licence to drive a two wheeler, it is open for the concerned authority to take strict action against him under the available provision of law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that there was contributory negligence cannot be accepted. 15. The second prong of the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that, the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The testimony of PW2 would show that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving licence to drive a LMV. The said LMV driving licence extract was produced by him at Ex.R2 which show that it is a LMV (non transport) driving licence. 16. The testimony of PW2 would show that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving licence to drive a LMV. The said LMV driving licence extract was produced by him at Ex.R2 which show that it is a LMV (non transport) driving licence. 16. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 lays down that it is not necessary for the drivers of the vehicle of which the unladden weight is less than 7500 kgs, to possess a driving licence of transport vehicle. The said decision has been again upheld by another Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi  HC-KAR and others, (2024) 1 SCC 818 . In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in this regard, it is not in the mouth of the Insurance Company to contend that the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel Sri O.Mahesh, for the Insurance Company in this regard has no merit and as such, the same is rejected. 17. Sofar as the appeal filed by the petitioner in MFA No.3387/2014 is concerned, it is relevant to note that the discharge summary which is at Ex.P6 and the wound certificate which is at Ex.P4 disclose that the petitioner has sustained comminuted fracture of mid 1/3 rd of the left femur and he was inpatient from 19.1.2011 to 15.2.2011. He underwent surgery on 1.2.2011.These records issued by Government Hospital, Davangere, are spoken to by the Doctor, who assessed the disability as PW2. In his testimony, he states that he had not treated the petitioner, but he was working in the JJ Medical College  Hospital and he assessed the disability. There cannot be any doubt about the testimony of Doctor who did not treat the petitioner and it has to be assessed with caution. In his testimony, he states that the petitioner was attending to his clinic for follow up treatment. In his affidavit, he has stated that there is shortening of the limb by 1 1/2 inches wasting of thigh and leg muscles , there is restriction of the movements of the left knee and ultimately, he assessed the permanent disability at 35% to 40% to the left lower limb. In his affidavit, he has stated that there is shortening of the limb by 1 1/2 inches wasting of thigh and leg muscles , there is restriction of the movements of the left knee and ultimately, he assessed the permanent disability at 35% to 40% to the left lower limb. A careful perusal of these records coupled with the X ray files which are produced at Ex.P10 would show that the petitioner had sustained the disability. 18. The petitioner is aged 23 years and therefore, the nature of the injuries and the line of treatment obtained by him at the Government Hospital show that the physical disability of 35% spoken to by PW2 need not be the functional disability, this Court assesses he functional disability of the petitioner at 8%. 19. The petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to show his income. Therefore, notional income has to be considered. The guidelines issued by KSLSA for the purpose of settlement of disputes before the Lok Adalt prescribe notional income of Rs.6,500/- per month for the year 2011. In umpteen number of judgments, this Court has held that the guidelines issued by KSLSA are in general conformity with the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and therefore, it is accepted. Therefore, the loss of future income due to disability is calculated as: Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 18x 8% = 1,12,320/- adopting the multiplier of 18' for the age of 23 years. As a consequence, holding that the petitioner was unable to resume his work for a period of three months, a sum of Rs.19,500/-(6,500/- x 3) is awarded under the head of loss of income during the laid up period. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-under the head of pain and sufferings and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 21. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.22,500/-towards medical expenses and there is no need for any interference in this regard. 22. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-under the head of loss of amenities in life and therefore, the said compensation also need not call any enhancement. 23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-under the head of attendant charges, miscellaneous expenses and etc., and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- considering the fact that he was inpatient for a period of 25 days. 24. 23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-under the head of attendant charges, miscellaneous expenses and etc., and the same needs to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- considering the fact that he was inpatient for a period of 25 days. 24. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a modified compensation of Rs.2,24,320/- under the following heads: Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 22,500/- Nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges Rs. 20,000/- Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 19,500/- Loss of future income due to disability Rs.1,12,320/- Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- Total Less: awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement Rs.2,24,320 Rs. 69,000/- Rs.1,55,320/- 25. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.2413/2014 is dismissed. (ii) The appeal filed by the petitioner in MFA No.3387/2014 is allowed in part. (iii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,55,320/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. (iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment. (v) The rest of the order of the Tribunal remains unaltered. (vi) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company in MFA No.2413/2014 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.