B. Manohar, J.

These two appeals are filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.6.2011 passed in MVC No. 5716/2008 on the file of the XXI Additional Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).

2. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award fastening the liability on them to compensate the claimant, whereas the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal hied MFA No. 393/2012 seeking enhancement of compensation. Hence, both the appeals clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The parties are referred to as in the Tribunal.

4. The appellant in MFA No. 393/2012 filed claim petition contending that on 19.6.2008 while he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-03/HA-389 on the left side of Murphy Road towards Kensington road and when he reached near Kensington road junction, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-19/1024 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant. Due to that, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to the Lake Side Hospital. Thereafter he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, wherein he had taken treatment. During the course of treatment, the left leg above the knee has been amputated. At the time of accident, the claimant was studying in first year Pre-University Course and he was aged about 20 years. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

5. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, chough the owner of the offending vehicle was served, he remained un-represented. The 1st respondent - Insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that though the offending vehicle was covered by the Insurance policy as on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness certificate. Apart from that, the driver of the offending lorry does not possess the valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

7. The claimant in order to prove bis case himself got examined as PW1 and the Doctor who was treated was examined as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.PI to P22. On behalf of the Insurance Company, the Administrative Officer was examined as RW1 and got marked two documents as Ex.R1 and R2.

8. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the spot mahazar, copy of the complaint and charge sheet held that due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending lorry, the accident occurred and claimant has sustained the grievous injuries. Hence, he is entitled for compensation. The Doctor who has treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 40% to the whole body. Though the claimant had furnished medical bills for Rs. 1,00,000/-, some of the medical bills are not supported by the prescription. In view of that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 90,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 25,000/- towards nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges; Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs. 75,000/- towards permanent disability; Rs. 25,000/- towards marriage prospects and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards future medication. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,75,000/- with 6% interest per annum. Since the offending vehicle is covered by the Insurance policy as on the date of accident, the liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to compensate the claimant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award fastening the liability on the Insurance Company t