JUDGMENT : C.M. POONACHA, J. Both the appeals are filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 18.3.2016 passed in MVC No.30/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that, claiming compensation for a road traffic accident which occurred on 17.7.2008, the claimant filed a claim petition arraying the driver and owner of the offending bus as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The respondents entered appearance and contested the claim proceedings. The Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 18.3.2016, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,39,340/- together with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved MFA No.7616/2016 is filed by the owner of the bus and MFA No.4247/2017 is filed by the claimant. 4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri D.Vijaykumar for the owner of the bus and learned counsel Sri Nagaraj Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the owner of the bus that the Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the bus was negligent in causing the accident in question. It is contended that the motor vehicle report (Ex.P4) is not disclosing any damages to the bus, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the driver of the bus is wholly negligent in causing the accident. It is further contended that the quantum of compensation is on the higher side. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant justifies the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and contends that the claimant having suffered a fracture of the right tibia, as also having taken treatment for the same, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side. 7. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, has been perused. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the bus negligent in causing the accident is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced? Re. question No.(i): 8. The questions that arise for consideration are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the bus negligent in causing the accident is erroneous and liable to be interfered with? ii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be enhanced? Re. question No.(i): 8. In the claim petition, the claimant has averred that when he was returning to his house on a motor cycle and due to a mechanical fault when the said motor cycle was being loaded into an Autorickshaw, the bus came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the claimant causing the accident in question. The driver and owner of the bus in their statement of objections have, in general denied the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and a doctor as PW.2. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the owner of the bus. The Tribunal while considering the material on record has held as follows: “13. In this case, the Respondents have not led any oral evidence or documentary evidence in support of their defense. In this case, the accident as well as the injuries sustained by the Petitioner is not disputed. The only dispute raised by the respondents is that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Petitioner himself. This contention is not proved by the Respondents by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence before this court. On the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioner as discussed supra substantiate the case of the Petitioner regarding the occurrence of the accident and show that the Petitioner Mahaboob Jan has sustained fracture of right tibia and the same is grievous in nature. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is clear from the aforementioned that although the owner of the bus has sought to contend that the driver of the bus was not negligent in causing the accident, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced in that regard. The claimant has produced the police records including the FIR (Ex.P1) as well as the charge sheet (Ex.P5), which clearly disclose that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus. The claimant has produced the police records including the FIR (Ex.P1) as well as the charge sheet (Ex.P5), which clearly disclose that the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the bus. It is clear from the aforementioned that the Tribunal has rightly, upon appreciating the material on record, held that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident. The said finding of the Tribunal is just and proper and is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the question framed for consideration is answered in the Negative Re. question No.(ii): 10. The claimant was aged 26 years as on the date of the accident i.e. on 17.7.2008. The claimant was stated to be a Carpenter. However, no documents have been produced to prove his income. The Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- p.m., and the appropriate multiplier 17 has been adopted. The income and multiplier assessed by the Tribunal are just and proper. 11. It is evident from the medical certificate (Ex.P3) and the testimony of the doctor, PW.2 that the claimant sustained fracture of the right tibia and was treated conservatively. It is further deposed by the doctor that there is shortening of the limb by 3.5 c.ms. However, it is forthcoming that the fracture is united and the doctor (PW.2) is not a treated doctor and has merely assessed the disability. The doctor has deposed that the whole body disability of the claimant is 13.3%. The Tribunal, appreciating the same has assessed the disability at 13%. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the avocation of the claimant, the disability assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper. 12. In view of the aforementioned, the compensation is re-assessed as follows: 12.1. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future income, diet and incidental charges are just and proper. 12.2. Having regard to the nature of injuries, it is just and proper that the compensation towards pain and suffering be re-assessed as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12.3. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the treatment, the laid up period is re-assessed as two months and accordingly, the loss of income during laid up period is reassessed as (Rs.4,500/-x2) Rs.9,000/-. 12.4. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities. 15,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12.3. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the treatment, the laid up period is re-assessed as two months and accordingly, the loss of income during laid up period is reassessed as (Rs.4,500/-x2) Rs.9,000/-. 12.4. It is forthcoming that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the resultant disability, it is just and proper that loss of amenities be awarded as Rs.15,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the total compensation under various heads is re-assessed as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of future income 119340.00 119340.00 2. Pain and suffering 10000.00 15000.00 3. Diet and incidental charges 5000.00 5000.00 4. Loss of income during treatment 5000.00 9000.00 5 Loss of amenities 0.00 15000.00 Total 139340.00 163340.00 14. Hence, the claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation of (Rs.1,63,340/- - Rs.1,39,340/-) Rs.24,000/-. 15. Having regard to the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in MFA No.4247/2017, the claimant shall not be entitled for interest for the delayed period of 283 days. 16. Accordingly, the question no.(ii) framed for consideration is answered in the Affirmative . 17. In the result, the following: ORDER i) Both the appeals are disposed of; ii) The judgment and award dated 18.3.2016 passed in MVC No.30/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, is modified to the extent stated herein. In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. iii) The claimant is entitled for a enhanced compensation of Rs.24,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., , from the date of petition till its realization except for the delayed period of 283 days in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal; iv) The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA No.7616/2016 together with records be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal; v) The insurer - appellant in MFA No.7616/2016 shall deposit the remaining amount together with accrued interest within a period of six weeks; vi) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced compensation together with interest accrued thereupon be disbursed to the claimant; vii) The Registry to draw the modified award accordingly; No costs.