S. Sujatha, J.

The Insurer as well as the claimant are in appeal challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru ['Tribunal', for short] in MVC No.5290/2010, whereby total compensation of Rs.2,06,400/- with interest at 6% per annum is awarded from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, fixing the contributory negligence of the driver of the lorry at 80% and of the claimant at 20%.

2. The claimant preferred petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident which occurred on 18.03.2010 alleging actionable negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-28- B-7369 insured with the insurance company-appellant in MFA No.11462/2011. It was contended that the accident occurred when he was standing near Deepa Complex near Ullal junction to cross the road. On service of notice, insurance company appeared through its Counsel and contested the claim. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- fixing the contributory negligence of 80% on the driver of the lorry [offending vehicle] and 20% on the claimant.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant [appellant in MFA No.1246/2012] submitted that the Police records discloses the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle, the claimant being a pedestrian waiting to cross the road has no way contributed to the accident in question. These aspects ought to have been analyzed in a proper perspective while fixing the contributory negligence of 20% on the claimant. The driver of the offending vehicle owes more responsibility being a driver of a heavy vehicle, particularly, in the junction where the possibility of pedestrians crossing the road cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle to be more careful and no contributory negligence can be attributed to the claimant. Further, learned Counsel argued that immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted to Nimhans Hospital, Bengaluru on 19.03.2010 where surgery was conducted and thereafter the claimant was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru on 20.03.2010 for further treatment where he has taken treatment as an inpatient from 20.03.2010 to 23.03.2010. The medical records discloses that the injuries sustained by the claimant are all grievous in nature. The impact of injuries has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- contrary to the material evidence on record. Even in the absence of substantial proof of income, considering the date of the accident and age of the injured, the reasonable monthly income ought to be not less than Rs.7,000/-. The compensation awarded under the different heads is on the lower side, thus seeks for enhancement of compensation considering these aspects. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. v Syed Zabiulla S.K. and others, (2015) ACJ 1682 to justify the quantum of compensation awarded under the different heads.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is arbitrary and exorbitant, much against the material evidence on record, it is submitted that the claimant in order to extract higher compensation, has made false submissions as regards his employment. Hence, considering the monthly income placed on record before the Hospital where he has taken treatment, as Rs.500/- and Rs.800/- [Exhibit P17], the determination of monthly income on notional basis at Rs.3,000/- cannot be found fault with. It is submitted that the Doctor who has assessed the disability is not competent. The disability relating to the brain and the neurological disorders can be assessed only by a Neurosurgeon and not a general surge