The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Principal District Judge and MACT at Hassan, in MVC No.847/2014 dated 7.10.2015.

2. Heard. Appeal is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 1.1.2014 at about 5.00 p.m. petitioner Santhosh @ Santhoshkumar along with other petitioners were standing on the footpath by parking the bike bearing Registration No.KA-02 HC-4609, at that time the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.MH-04 H-4069 came from wrong side of the road rashly and negligently and dashed against the motor bike and as a result of the same the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to SSM Hospital, Hassan. After first aid treatment he was shifted to B.G.S. Global Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was doing agriculture and was also working as an electrician and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to do any work as before and as such he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming for compensation.

5. In pursuance of the notice respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed his objection by denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that the petitioner himself has contributed to the said accident. He was riding the motorcycle rashly and negligently without there being any valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. He admitted the issuance of the insurance to the said lorry. He further submitted that his liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. He further contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not possessing valid and effective driving licence and as such the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that took place on 01.01.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., near Kanadahalli, in front of Daba on B.M. Road, N.H.48, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.MH.04 H.4069?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

(iii) What order?

7. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and he also examined the doctors through Court Commissioner as PWs.3 and 4 and also examined one witness as PW.7. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same, the appellant-claimant is before this Court.

8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the compensation awarded under the various heads is on the lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. He further contended that though the appellant-claimant was doing electrician work and was also doing agriculture and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal by taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month has awarded the compensation on the lower side. He further contended that PW3 the doctor has deposed that for the purpose of future surgery an amount of Rs.70,000/- is required, but the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. He further contended that the said doctor has assessed the disability at 48% and 1/3rd of the same to the whole body, it comes to 16%, but the Tribunal has taken 10% disability and has awarded the compensation on the lower side. On these grounds, he prayed for enhancing the compensation.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-