JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. Though these appeals are listed for admission today, by consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, they are taken up for final disposal. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by Second Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Additional M.A.C.T., Gokak in M.V.C. No. 1014 of 2008, on 25.11.2009. 2. M.F.A. No. 21314 of 2010 is filed by insurer questioning the quantum. M.F.A. No. 20774 of 2010 is filed by claimant seeking enhancement. 3. The facts in nutshell leading to the filing of this appeal are as under: (a) Claimant was travelling in a Tata maxicab bearing registration No. KA 23-6512 from Laxmeshwar Cross to Yadwad village on 30.4.2008. On account of rash and negligent driving of the said maxicab, the said vehicle turned turtle and on account of it, claimant is said to have sustained grievous injuries. On account of injuries sustained claimant contended he suffered permanent physical disability and as such claim petition in M.V.C. No. 1014 of 2008 came to be filed. On service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, viz., owner and insurer of offending vehicle appeared and filed their statement of objection denying the averments made in the claim petition. (b) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 30.4.2008 when the petitioner was travelling from Kulgod to Yadwad in Tata maxicab bearing No. KA 23-6512 at about 11 a.m. after crossing Venkatapur Cross, driver of the vehicle has driven it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and vehicle fell down and caused accident by which petitioner sustained injuries as alleged? (2) Whether the respondent No. 2 proves that it is not liable to pay the compensation? (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (4) What order or award? (c) Claimant got himself examined as PW 4 and also examined the doctor who operated and treated him as PW 5. Claimant has produced Exhs. P44 to P47, Exh. P48, Exh. P79, Exh. P87 and Exh. P88. Respondents did not examine any witnesses but got marked the insurance policy of offending vehicle as per Exh. R1. (c) Claimant got himself examined as PW 4 and also examined the doctor who operated and treated him as PW 5. Claimant has produced Exhs. P44 to P47, Exh. P48, Exh. P79, Exh. P87 and Exh. P88. Respondents did not examine any witnesses but got marked the insurance policy of offending vehicle as per Exh. R1. (d) On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,84,262 with 6 per cent interest under the following heads: Pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000 Physical disability - Rs. 2,01,600 Loss of amenities - Rs. 10,000 Medical expenses and conveyance, etc. - Rs. 52,662 Total - Rs. 2,84,262 4. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. 5. Mr. Laxman Mannoddar, the learned advocate appearing for the insurer, would contend that as per sonography report, Exh. P80, no abnormality was found in the visualised structure and thus the testimony of the doctor, PW 5, cannot be accepted at its face value. He would also submit that Exh. P81, namely, disability certificate, is contrary to Exh. P80 and thus Tribunal committed a grave error in assessing disability at 40 per cent to the whole body and contended that disability to particular limb was 40 per cent as assessed by the doctor. He has also contended that compensation awarded by Tribunal taking into consideration the disability at 40 per cent is highly excessive and contends that disability as assessed by the doctor is to be taken as disability to the particular limb and not as whole body disability and if whole body disability is assessed at 1/4th of particular limb disability the compensation awarded by Tribunal will have to be reduced. On this ground, he prays for modification of judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays for allowing of the appeal filed by insurer. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mutturaj R. Patil, learned advocate appearing for claimant, would submit that compensation as awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and Tribunal committed a serious error in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses, considering the nature of injuries suffered by claimant. He would also submit that Tribunal committed serious error in not awarding any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities' without ascertaining the disability and as such he seeks for enhancement of compensation. He would also submit that Tribunal committed serious error in not awarding any compensation under the head of 'loss of amenities' without ascertaining the disability and as such he seeks for enhancement of compensation. He would also submit that Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for loss of expectation. On this ground he prays for allowing of the appeal filed by claimant and prays for dismissal of appeal filed by the insurer. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties, following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal in M.V.C. No. 1014 of 2008 is just and reasonable or whether it requires to be reduced, enhanced or modified? (2) If so, to what extent? (3) What order? Re. Point Nos. 1 and 2: 8. These two points being interlinked with each other are being taken up for consideration. 8.1. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for claimant has made available certified copies of deposition of doctors, exhibits, which is not disputed by counsel for the insurer. The accident in question, injuries sustained by claimant and issuance of policy to the offending vehicle are not in dispute. Hence, same are not delved into in these appeals. The only issue is with regard to the assessment of the disability made by Tribunal for awarding compensation under the head of loss of future income. In the disability certificate which came to be produced by claimant before Tribunal at Exh. P81, it has been stated as follows: (1) Blunt injury abdomen/rupture of spleen. (2) Contusion left costal margin with abrasions over the left lower chest. Claimant came to be admitted at Ganga Surgical and Fracture Clinic, Gokak on 30.4.2008 and was inpatient till 29.5.2008. The discharge summary came to be produced and marked as Exh. P82. The doctor who has issued Exhs. P81 and P82, namely, Dr. M.G. Umarani, has been examined as PW 5, and he has stated as under in his evidence: (13) I have treated petitioner Sangappa for the said accidental injury. During the course of treatment on 10.5.2008 I have conducted an operation exploration laprotomy in supine position abdomen explored in midline incision, abdomen cavity full of blood, spleen was lacerated at three places, splenectomy done all organs visualised, saline wash given and abdomen closed in layers with corrugated red rubber drain. After treatment the petitioner was discharged on 29.5.2008. During the course of treatment on 10.5.2008 I have conducted an operation exploration laprotomy in supine position abdomen explored in midline incision, abdomen cavity full of blood, spleen was lacerated at three places, splenectomy done all organs visualised, saline wash given and abdomen closed in layers with corrugated red rubber drain. After treatment the petitioner was discharged on 29.5.2008. Further as per my advice the petitioner took follow-up treatment from me for the said accidental injuries. (15) I state that the clinical examination of the petitioner Sangappa reveals tenderness over left costal margin and tenderness over upper abdomen. Movements of chest are diminished on left side. Petitioner has difficulty in doing the work. (16) I state that as per my advice the petitioner Sangappa has undergone sonography and it shows absence of spleen. Since he has no spleen his body is unable to filter foreign substance in the blood, immune response is markedly diminished, function of removing of old blood cells is lost, storage of red blood cells and platelets is lost. He is prone to infection and thromboembolism. Spleen is very important organ and due to loss of spleen he incurs a permanent disability of 45 per cent in relation to whole body. Calculation is based on actual clinical and sonography findings and clinical methods described in textbooks of orthopaedics and traumatology. (Emphasis supplied by me) 8.2. The said doctor has been subjected to cross-examination, whereunder he admits that he did not operate the claimant, but assisted Dr. Gudageri in the operation. A suggestion is made to the said witness that the job of spleen in human body can be carried out by bone marrow to which suggestion the doctor has denied. At this juncture it would be necessary to extract the commentary on "Splenectomy Personal Injury News" which reads as under: It is submitted that rupture of spleen is an important cause of disability and death after motor accident. Brisk haemorrhage may kill within minutes; slower bleeding commonly requires emergency surgery. The blood management functions of the spleen are largely taken over by other tissues, but complete splenectomy leaves the patient permanently vulnerable to life-threatening infection. Immunisation, education and antibiotics incompletely prevent excess disability and morality. 8.3. Brisk haemorrhage may kill within minutes; slower bleeding commonly requires emergency surgery. The blood management functions of the spleen are largely taken over by other tissues, but complete splenectomy leaves the patient permanently vulnerable to life-threatening infection. Immunisation, education and antibiotics incompletely prevent excess disability and morality. 8.3. In an article published by Irish Journal of Medical Science (1926 to 1967) and Current Management of Splenic Injury it has been explained by the author as under: The blood management functions of the spleen are largely taken over by other tissues, but complete splenectomy leaves the patient permanently vulnerable to life-threatening infection. It is submitted that administration of higher prophylactic antibiotics is required for long time to the patient who is not having spleen. Further it is submitted that the Legal Medicine Hand Book states that 'Although more common in the first 2 years, life-threatening infection and premature death are permanent risks'. 8.4. After the injury was sustained and after claimant was operated upon, a sonography test was conducted on claimant and the said report of sonography scanning came to be produced and marked as Exh. P80, wherein it has been stated under the heading of spleen as 'not visualised'. This report is not disputed by insurer. The evidence of doctor, PW 5, which is to the effect that the spleen has been removed from the body of the claimant, has to be accepted and rightly so Tribunal has accepted it. Even the cross-examination of the doctor, PW 5, would suggest that function of the spleen cannot be carried on by the bone marrow which would mean that there is no spleen in the body of claimant. In view of this overwhelming evidence available on record, Tribunal was correct and justified in accepting medical evidence as tendered by claimant. 9. Now turning to the issue of disability, it is seen from the evidence of doctor at para 16 of his evidence as extracted above he has specifically stated that spleen is an important organ and due to the loss of spleen there would be 45 per cent permanent disability to the whole body. He has also reiterated and substantiated the said assessment by contending that conclusion is based on actual clinical and sonography findings as described in the textbooks of orthopaedic traumatology. He has also reiterated and substantiated the said assessment by contending that conclusion is based on actual clinical and sonography findings as described in the textbooks of orthopaedic traumatology. The percentage of disability as assessed by the doctor, PW 5, is not disputed in exactitude while cross-examining the said witness. The thrust of the cross-examination would suggest that even in the absence of spleen claimant can be a normal individual, which fact has been denied by the doctor. In view of this fact also this court is not inclined to disturb the finding of the Tribunal whereunder it has assessed the disability of the claimant to the whole body as 40 per cent and awarded compensation under the head of physical disability, though it could have been under the head loss of future income. In view of the discussion made hereinabove I am of the considered view that the judgment and award passed by Tribunal in assessing disability at 40 per cent to whole body cannot be held to be either excessive or unreasonable. 10. Though Mr. Mutturaj Patil, learned advocate for claimant, would contend that claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, on re-appreciation of entire evidence and also on considering the nature of injury sustained by the claimant, this court is of the considered view that compensation that has been awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any enhancement. In view of the above discussion point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered by holding that compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any modification whatsoever. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (a) Both M.F.A. Nos. 21314 and 20774 of 2010 are hereby dismissed. (b) The judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 1014 of 2008 dated 25.11.2009 by the Second Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Additional M.A.C.T., Gokak, is hereby confirmed. (c) No order as to costs. (d) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal for being disbursed in accordance with the judgment and award of the Tribunal. (e) In view of the appeal being disposed on merits, Misc. Civil No. 103813 of 2010 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.