JUDGMENT MFA No. 10769 of 2005 is by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount. MFA No. 10737 of 2005 is by the Insurance Company questioning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimant at Rs.2,74,144/- with interest at 8% p.a. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their ranks in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Claimant instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) claiming compensation against the owner of Hero Honda motor cycle KA-06-Q.9108 and its insurer (appellant in MFA No. 10737 of 2005). It was contended that, he was proceeding on a motor cycle as a pillion rider and the rider of the motor cycle dashed the vehicle against the road side banyan tree, resulting in sustaining of injuries. The motor cycle was duly insured. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (i) Whether the claimant proves that the accident occurred on 9-6-2003 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. KA-06.Q.9108 by its driver? (ii) Whether claimant is entitled for compensation? If so to what compensation and from whom? 3. Claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined the doctor who had treated him for the accidental injuries as P.W. 2. Exs. P. 1 to P. 18 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. Considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal has held that the claimant has proved that the accident occurred on 9-6-2003 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. KA-06.Q.9108 by its rider and the claimant is entitled for awarding of compensation which was determined at Rs.2,74,144/- with interest at 8% p.a. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant has preferred M.F.A No. 10769 of 2005. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has preferred M.F.A No. 10737 of 2005. 4. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record. 5. Sri KR. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant contended that, the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record to assess the just compensation to be awarded. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has preferred M.F.A No. 10737 of 2005. 4. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record. 5. Sri KR. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant contended that, the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record to assess the just compensation to be awarded. He submitted that, the Tribunal has not awarded the full amount spent towards medical and incidental expenses and it has also not determined the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and also in not awarding any amount towards loss of income during the laid up period. The matter of appreciation of evidence with regard to percentage of permanent disability and all other incident aspects is erroneous. It was contended that, the amount awarded is not just compensation and the claimant is entitled to be awarded much more amount than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Sri AN. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that, the Tribunal has allowed the claimant to commit fraud and misrepresentation on it, to wangle an award by producing fictitious documents and medical bills, in that duplication of medical bills has not been noticed by it. It was also submitted that the awarding of interest at 8% p.a. is much against the decision of this Court in the case of A. Manavalagan v A. Krishnamurthy and Others1, and at any event, the impugned award is excessive and calls for interference. 1. 2004(G) Kar. L.J. 321 (DB) : ILR 2004 Kar. 3268 (DB) 7. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is: What is the amount of compensation which the claimant is entitled to? 8. Accident having occurred on 9-6-2003 involving motor cycle bearing No. KA-06-Q.9108 in which, the claimant was a pillion rider, is not in dispute. The said motor cycle was dashed against the root of a Banyan tree and thus the accident occurred. Claimant has fallen down and sustained injuries. He was admitted to Manipal Hospital Bangalore, wherein he has taken treatment. Claimant as P.W.1 has deposed regarding the injuries sustained by him, expenditure incurred for obtaining of treatment, his income and the resultant loss etc., P.W. 2-Dr. Ashwak Ahamed, an Assistant Professor of Orthopedics’ and Trauma at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, has deposed as P.W. 2. He was admitted to Manipal Hospital Bangalore, wherein he has taken treatment. Claimant as P.W.1 has deposed regarding the injuries sustained by him, expenditure incurred for obtaining of treatment, his income and the resultant loss etc., P.W. 2-Dr. Ashwak Ahamed, an Assistant Professor of Orthopedics’ and Trauma at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, has deposed as P.W. 2. He has examined the claimant on 9-6-2003 with the history of road traffic accident and found the following injuries.- (1) Right shoulder subluxation (2) Upper brachial plexous injury on right side (3) Bifrontal depressed fracture (4) ACF fracture with CSF Rhinorrhoea (5) Right Zygoma fracture. According to P.W. 2 on 11-6-2003, open reduction and internal fixation was done for fracture of right Zygoma. Bifrontal craniotomy and ACE cm-petting was done. N.C.S. study done on 22-6-2003, revealed evidence of C5, C6 nerve root injury. He has stated that patient was discharged on 23-6-2003 and was readmitted on 10-11-2003. On 13-11-2003 Neurolysis of right brachial plexous done. Patient was then discharged on 16-11-2003. Having examined the patient on 16-5-2005, he found that, motor power of right upper limb to be as follows Shoulder Joint: Abduction - 2/5 Abduction - 3/5 Flexion - 2/5 Extension - 2/5 Lateral Rotation - 1/5 Medical Rotation - 1/5 Elbow Joint: Flexion - 1/5 Extension - 4/5 Pronation - 3/5 Supination - 3/5 Wrist Joint: Flexion - 3/5 Extension - 3/5 According to him, movements of right shoulder were found as follows.- No abduction beyond 25°, Rotation of 10° Flexion and extension limited to 20°. Movements of right elbow are as follows.- Motion limited from 10° to 100° Further flexion. Median nerve neuropraxia present on right upper limb. In view of the findings, P.W. 2 has assessed the permanent physical disability at 60% for right upper limb and for whole body, the permanent disability is 30%. According to him, the patient would be unable to do heavy manual work as a labour. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination to doubt the testimony of P.W. 2. 9. Considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence on record, it is clear that, the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident and has obtained treatment being an in-patient in Manipal Hospital. He has incurred expenses for obtaining of the treatment. 9. Considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence on record, it is clear that, the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident and has obtained treatment being an in-patient in Manipal Hospital. He has incurred expenses for obtaining of the treatment. As a result of the injuries, treatment and the period of recovery, there is expenditure or loss of income. In the circumstances, the claimant is entitled to be awarded the compensation as follows. 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- 2. Loss of income during laid up period at Rs.9,000/- Rs. 3,000/- p.m. for 3 months 3. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000 4. Loss of future income on account of Rs.86,400/- permanent disability at 15% (Rs. 3000 x 12 x 16/15) 5. Medical expenses as per hospital bills Rs.1,06,000/- Rs. 1,05,539/- rounded off to 6. Incidental expenses such as conveyance Rs. 15,000/- charges, extra nourish diet and attendant Total Rs.2,76,400/- The Tribunal without noticing the duplication in medical bills and without assessing the evidence on record in the proper perspective, has passed the award for Rs.2,74,144/-. The amount which the claimant is entitled to is Rs.2,76,400/- which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. in terms of the decision in the case of A. Manavalagan. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER MFA No. 10769 of2005 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. In modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it is held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,76,400/- as against Rs.2,74,144/-. The said amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount by the Insurance Company in the Tribunal. MFA No. 10737 of 2005 stands partly allowed. The rate of interest gets reduced from 8% p.a. to 6% p.a. on the compensation ofRs.2,76,400/-. The amount deposited in MFA No. 10737 of 2005 is hereby directed to be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for necessary action. Both the appeals stand allowed in part accordingly.