1. Appellant - claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No. 1635 of 2012 dated 24.4.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The claimant filed a claim petition contending that on 20.5.2012 at about 5.30 p.m., while he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 09 - EC 1196 towards Srirangapatna, near Pashchi - mavahini River Tank bed, a bus bearing registration No. KL 05 - U 1890 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came at a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. Due to the impact, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore, thereafter he took treatment as inpatient in the Government Hospital at Hassan. However, as per the advice of the doctor, he took treatment at Wenlock Hospital at Mangalore as inpatient for a period of 30 days. During the course of treatment, initially his right leg was amputated below knee, subsequently, his right leg was amputated above knee. At the time of accident, he was aged about 25 years, doing agricultural work and earning a sum of Rs. 10,000 p.m. He claims that he has spent more than Rs. 2,00,000 towards his treatment. Due to negligence on the part of driver of the offending bus, which was insured with the respondent No. 2 insurance company, the accident occurred. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimant to an extent of Rs. 20,00,000.

3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the owner of the bus was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. Insurance company defended the case by filing the written statement and contended that due to negligence on the part of the claimant himself, the accident occurred. The rider of the motor cycle as well as the driver of the offending bus were not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed is exorbitant and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

5. The claimant, in order to prove his case, got examined himself as PW 1, the doctor who treated him was examined as PW 2 and got marked the documents as Exh. P1 to Exh. P12. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses was examined nor has any document been marked.

6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration spot mahazar, copy of the complaint and charge - sheet, held that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and hence the claimant is entitled to compensation.

7. With regard to quantum of compensation, the claimant has not produced any document to show that he was earning Rs. 10,000 p.m. by doing agricultural work. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal had taken the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000 p.m. In the accident, claimant has sustained fracture of right leg and other injuries. During the course of treatment, his right leg was amputated on 6.6.2016. The claimant has become permanently disabled to do any work. The doctor who treated the claimant has assessed the disability to an extent of 80 per cent. The Tribunal reckoning the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000 p.m., taking the disability to an extent of 35 per cent to the whole body and applying the multiplier of 18 since he was aged about 25 years at the time of accident, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 towards future loss of income; Rs. 15,000 towards pain and suffering; Rs. 15,000 towards medical expenditure; Rs. 6,000 towards food and nourishment; Rs. 4,000 towards loss of income during the laid - up period and a sum of Rs. 4,000 for medical attendants. In all, Tribun