JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.10.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 14.08.2011 the appellant after completion of his work at Challakere boarded an auto bearing registration No.KA16 B3998 to reach his native place namely Gopanahally Village. The driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at the same time, one motorcycle bearing registration No.KA06 EE4860 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the auto in which the claimant was traveling. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained fracture of both the bones of right forearm and right olecranon and tenderness over chest and other parts of the body. The claimant was hospitalized and thereafter, operation was performed. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the claimant was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and was engaged in agricultural operation and further submitted that he used to earn Rs.2,00,000/p.a. It is further submitted that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant lost his source of livelihood. Accordingly, the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/along with interest. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 filed written statement in which inter aliait was pleaded that the auto in question was insured by it. However, it was submitted that the driver of the auto did not have any valid driving license at the time of accident and therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. The age, avocation and income of the claimant as well as the manner of accident was also denied. The respondent No.3, in its objection, denied the factum of the accident. However, the fact that the motorcycle in question was insured with respondent No.4 was not denied.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Similarly, respondent No.4 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1. Respondent No.2 was examined as RW2 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 were marked. Respondent No.3 was examined as RW3 and Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 were marked. One witness was examined as RW4 who proved Ex.R8. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,held that in the accident that took place on 14.08.2011, the appellant sustained injuries. It was further held that the driver of the auto as well as the motorcycle have contributed in causing of the accident to the extent of 50% each. It was further held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,05,940/as compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the notional income of the claimant ought to have been taken as per the guidelines prepared by the High Court Legal Services Committee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

5. The only issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into either the issue of manner of accident or the issue with regard to contributory negligence. Admittedly, in the accident, the appellant has sustained fracture of both the bones of right forearm and right olecranon and tenderness over chest and other parts of the body. The appellant is an agriculturist. However, he has not adduced any proof with regard to his income. The accident has taken place in the year 2011. Therefore, the notional income of the appellant as per the guidelines prepared by the High Court Legal Services Committee has to