JUDGMENT AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment, MFA No. 8526/2003 is by the insurer and MFA No. 1145/2004 is by the claimant. 2. During the course of the judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The liability of the Insurance Company is admitted. The only question which is required to be looked into in both these appeals is regarding quantum. The insurer is before this Court seeking reduction and the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement. 4. The claimant who was aged 66 years at the time of accident, suffered various injuries in an accident which occurred on 8.12.1995 at about 1.35 p.m. when he was riding the Hero Puch on HMT Main Road. Suffice it to say that the rider of a motorcycle came in an opposite direction and hit the Hero Puch and as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant was immediately taken to St. John Medical College Hospital and he was operated, rod was inserted, but, however, due to breakage of the rod, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital and operated and new rod was inserted. Thus, according to the claimant, he has suffered various injuries as a result of the accident and had to undergo various operations and hence, lodged a claim petition. The insurer enters appearance and contested the proceedings inter alia contending that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. But, however, their main defence appears to be that the claim itself is exorbitant and in view of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he is not entitled for compensation as claimed by him. 5. During the course of trial, the claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and the doctor who operated on him as P.W. 2. Exs. P1 to P13 were marked. On behalf of the insurer, none was examined. 6. The learned member of the Tribunal having regard to the nature of the injuries as well as the duration of the hospitalisation, was of the view that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,00,200/-. The Tribunal has given break up also. 7. Mr. P1 to P13 were marked. On behalf of the insurer, none was examined. 6. The learned member of the Tribunal having regard to the nature of the injuries as well as the duration of the hospitalisation, was of the view that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,00,200/-. The Tribunal has given break up also. 7. Mr. Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel for the insurer submits that the claimant has not made available any documents to show that after his retirement from Bank, he was practicing as an Advocate. He submits that the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is high in as much as having regard to the age of the claimant, the proper multiplier would be 5. He further submits that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been granted under no justifiable reason and without any heading. 8. We have perused the memorandum of appeal filed by the claimant and also the grounds raised in support of the appeal. It is noticed that the claimant would submit that the compensation awarded towards injury, pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities and enjoyment in life is on the lower side, more so, having regard to the nature of injuries and the duration of hospitalisation. 9. Indeed, we are not required to record a finding on the question of actionable negligence in as much as neither the insurer nor the insured are questioning the same. In so far as the quantum is concerned, we notice that the claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and he had suffered multiple fracture of both the bones of left leg and severe head injuries. We also notice that initially he was taken to Chaitanya Hospital and later shifted to St. John Hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient for 18 days. It is also not in dispute that after his discharge from the hospital, he was under treatment for nearly two years. Initially, an operation was conducted for insertion of rod with a nail but, however, the steel rod which was inserted gave way and broke and the claimant had to undergo another operation for insertion of new rod with nails. Indeed, the evidence as well as the finding discloses that the rod was incapable of bearing the weight of the claimant. Initially, an operation was conducted for insertion of rod with a nail but, however, the steel rod which was inserted gave way and broke and the claimant had to undergo another operation for insertion of new rod with nails. Indeed, the evidence as well as the finding discloses that the rod was incapable of bearing the weight of the claimant. Thus, we notice that the claimant had to undergo two operations, one for insertion of the rod and second for removal of broken rod and for insertion of another rod. Indeed, the doctor was examined as P.W. 2 and he has in no uncertain terms stated that the claimant came to the hospital, with a history of road traffic accident and with a complaint of malunion of fracture of left tibia with broken venal in situ. The doctor also deposed that the claimant was admitted on 20.10.1997 for removal of implant, interlocking nailing was fixed under G.A. and discharged on 25.10.1997. He was readmitted with healing fracture left tibia, interlocking nail in situ, broken distal locking screw with a brake in the nail, the distal screw was removed and he was discharged on 13.5.1998. Later the doctor has examined the claimant and has recorded the following disability: (i) There is shortening of 1 inch in the left lower limb; (ii) Healed scar over the left leg, bowing of left leg; (iii) Knee range of movement flexion restricted by 10 decrees terminally, ankle range of movement, dorsi flexion 10 degrees, planter flexion 20 degrees, aversion. 10. On the basis of his examination of the claimant, the doctor opined that there is permanent disability of 25% to the left lower limb and 10% to the whole body. We are of the view that the injuries by themselves are serious in nature. Nevertheless, having regard to the age of the claimant being 66 years at the time of accident, the injuries are required to be termed as serious. We are also required to note that the claimant had to undergo two surgeries, one for the insertion, second for the removal and for implanting of new steel rod with nails. Having regard to the nature of injuries and with reference to the pain and suffering, we are of the view that the Tribunal was clearly in error in awarding a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering. Having regard to the nature of injuries and with reference to the pain and suffering, we are of the view that the Tribunal was clearly in error in awarding a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering. Indeed, we are required to note that the injuries are classified at 3 different stages, one is the injury by itself, i.e., fracture and injury suffered by the fracture and two more pain and suffering caused by the two operations which the claimant had to undergo. Thus, we are of the view that the compensation awardable under the head of injury, pain and suffering requires a substantial enhancement. The circumstances would warrant having regard to the age of the claimant and hence, the same is quantified at Rs. 1,25,000/-. 11. In so far as loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,500/-. We are of the view that the said amount also requires substantial enhancement, more so with regard to the age of the claimant. We propose to fix the quantum of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life at Rs. 75,000/-. 12. In so far as the medical expenses, attending charges, conveyance, nourishment, etc., is concerned, we are of the view that the same does not warrant interference. Indeed, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,37,500/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the medical bills made available. We are of the view that they are actuals and hence does not warrant interference. 13. In so far as the loss of future earnings at Rs. 43,200/- is concerned, Mr. Hegde is justified in submitting that the multiplier adopted is on the higher side. Indeed, we notice that the claimant is 66 years old and the proper multiplier in the circumstances would be 5. Thus, if we maintain the income of the claimant at Rs. 4,000/- with reference to the disability factor assessed to the entire body with the multiplier 5, the total compensation awardable would be Rs. 24,000/-, the insurer is entitled to succeed to that extent. Thus, the total compensation awardable under various heads would be as follows:- 1. Loss of future earnings Rs. 24,000/- 2. Injury, pain and suffering Rs. 1,25,000/- 3. Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life Rs. 75,000/- 4. Medical expenses Rs. 2,37,500/- 5. Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 6. Conveyance and nourishment Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 4,91,500/- 14. Thus, the total compensation awardable under various heads would be as follows:- 1. Loss of future earnings Rs. 24,000/- 2. Injury, pain and suffering Rs. 1,25,000/- 3. Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life Rs. 75,000/- 4. Medical expenses Rs. 2,37,500/- 5. Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 6. Conveyance and nourishment Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 4,91,500/- 14. Thus, the total compensation awardable would be Rs. 4,91,500/-. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal of claimant in MFA No. 1145/2004 is accepted in part. The total compensation awardable to the claimant would be Rs. 4,91,500/-. The claimant is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition. MFA No. 8526/2003 by the Insurance Company is disposed of. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. The insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.