JUDGMENT This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated: 07.01.2010 passed in MVC No.1361/2006 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTCIV and Additional MACT, Mysore, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, this matter was heard on merits. The materials placed before this Court is sufficient to dispose of this matter at this stage. 3. The case of the claimant in the Claims Tribunal is as under: That on 17.04.2004, the claimant was moving on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA19H361, near Manasagangothri Canteen. At that time, one Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA12M8448 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicyclist, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. He took treatment at BM Hospital and BG Apollo Hospital. 4. In the claims Tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel, but not filed objection statement. The respondent No.3 has filed objection statement. 5. The claims Tribunal relying on the police papers namely FIR, Spot Mahazar, Siezure Mahazar and IMV report and also in the absence of rebuttal evidence came to a conclusion that the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA12M8448 was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused this accident. The finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Car is based on the evidence and it is sound and proper. 6. The claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/. 7. Not satisfied with the award amount, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is on the lower side, even the compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities and other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, he seeks for enhancement of compensation. 9. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for appellant, in my view, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.35,000/under the head of pain and suffering. 10. Therefore, he seeks for enhancement of compensation. 9. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for appellant, in my view, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.35,000/under the head of pain and suffering. 10. Due to the injuries sustained, there is curtailment of enjoyment of life by the claimant. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/under the head of loss of amenities. 11. The claimant has taken treatment at two different hospitals and he might have spent some amount towards medical expenses, therefore, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.3,000/under the head of medical expenses. 12. During the hospitalization, the claimant needs attendant and he might have also spent some amount towards conveyance. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.4,000/each under the heads of attendant and conveyance charges. 13. During the hospitalization, the claimant needs nutritious food, therefore, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.3,000/under the head of nourishment expenses. 14. The claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.47,000/under the head of loss of income during the laidup period. The compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal under this head is reasonable. 15. In this case, the claimant has got disability to the extent of 46%. The doctor has not spoken about the disability with regard to the whole body. The claimant has permanent disability and thus has permanent diminution of his earning capacity, but he has been continued in the same employment without deduction of salary, the claimant is entitled for compensation for his handicap in the labour market. In many cases of comparatively not serious injuries, though there is some permanent disability, the disability has no immediate adverse effect on his salary. He may be getting the preaccident salary. However, such a man is at a disadvantage when compared with his coworkers in the labour market. It may so happen that he continues to work with difficulty and gets the same salary but if there is reduction in the workforce by the employers, this worker with disability is likely to be sent off first. 16. However, such a man is at a disadvantage when compared with his coworkers in the labour market. It may so happen that he continues to work with difficulty and gets the same salary but if there is reduction in the workforce by the employers, this worker with disability is likely to be sent off first. 16. It may happen in some cases, though the claimant is in a position to work physically after the accident as before, the after effects of the accident may make it more difficult for him to find work or to retain his work. There would be some degree of physical handicap. In these cases, the Court may have to add a suitable sum by way of damages having regard to this aspect. In the instant case, the claimant has got permanent disability to the extent of 46%. The income of the claimant is Rs.30,303/per month. 1/3rd of 46% will be the disability to the whole body. Accordingly, the disability of the claimant to the whole body is 15%. The age of the claimant is 45 years and suitable multiplier that has to be adopted in this case is 14. The loss of income proportionate to the disability of 15% would be Rs.4546/. So due to the reduced capacity of work, the claimant has lost income of Rs.7,63,728/(Rs.4546/x 12 = Rs.54552/x 14 = Rs.7,63,728/). Since the claimant is continuing in his employment, he may not be entitled for compensation under the head of reduced eligibility of employment. However, applying the principle mentioned herein above, a suitable sum has to be awarded by way of damages having regard to his disability. 10% of reduced earning capacity can be awarded as suitable sum in respect of reduced eligibility of employment or handicap in the employment market i.e,. Rs.77,000/. 17. In all, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under: Pain and suffering Rs. 35,000/ Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/ Medical expenses Rs. 3,000/ Attendant charges Rs. 4,000/ Conveyance charges Rs. 4,000/ Nourishment expenses Rs. 3,000/ Loss of earning during the laidup period Rs.47,000/ Reduced eligibility of employment or handicap in the employment market Rs.77,000/ Total Rs.1,93,000/ 18. The enhanced compensation will bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 19. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. The enhanced compensation will bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 19. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part. 2. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.80,000/as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to Rs.1,93,000/. 3. The enhanced compensation amount will bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. Rest of the judgment and award is accepted.