JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for short), by its judgment and award dated 16.09.2010 in MVC No.69/2009. 2. Though this appeal is coming on for admission, with the consent from both sides, the matter was taken up for final disposal. 3. The appellant/claimant in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are all meager. Further stating that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation as claimed by him, has prayed for allowing the appeal. 4. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in her argument reiterated the contention taken up by the appellant in his memorandum of appeal. 6. The present appeal being the claimant’s appeal and the respondents having not preferred either cross objection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of accident on the date, time and place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondents to pay compensation to the injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident need not be re-analysed again. The only question that remains to be considered is about the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. After analyzing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them: Towards pain and agony Rs.60,000.00/- Towards medical expenses Rs.25,000.00/- Towards loss of future earning Rs.51,000.00/- Towards loss of earning during laid up period Rs.09,000.00/- Towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness Rs.10,000.00/- Towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges Rs.15,000.00/- Towards future medical expenses Rs.10,000.00/- Total Rs.1,80,000.00/- 8. The wound certificate at EX.P6 as well the evidence of PW.1 go to show that in the accident he sustained fracture of patella, fracture of supra condylar femur right and fracture of iliac bone. The wound certificate at EX.P6 as well the evidence of PW.1 go to show that in the accident he sustained fracture of patella, fracture of supra condylar femur right and fracture of iliac bone. The Tribunal has assessed all these injuries separately and awarded separate compensation towards pain and agony for all these three injuries. While doing so it has also taken into consideration of the length of the stay of the injured in the hospital as an inpatient. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances and appreciating the same in proper perspective it has in total awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. I do not find any reason to make any variation in that regard. 9. Towards medical expenses it has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, in that it has considered the medical bills produced by the claimant at EX.P9. Learned counsel for the appellant in her arguments submitted that though the total amount of the medical bills at EX.P9 was coming at Rs.29,814/-, but the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.25,000/-. When it is perused it is found that the amount of advance amount paid were also shown in the final bill. As such, the Tribunal has properly deducted the amount of advance paid to the hospital since they were already included in the other bills for calculating the total expenses incurred, as such it has rightly arrived at a figure at Rs.25,000/- which was the actual medical expenses incurred by the injured. Thus it does not warrant any variation in this appeal. 10. Towards loss of future earning on the basis of disability it is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the injured was earning not less than a sum of Rs.8,000/- by doing chilli business, but the Tribunal has not even taken the notional income, on the other hand it has taken his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- which is far below than the notional income. It is her further argument that percentage of disability is also requires to be taken at a higher percentage. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company in his argument vehemently submitted that though the claimant claims to be a person doing chilli business, but no material has been produced by him in that regard. It is her further argument that percentage of disability is also requires to be taken at a higher percentage. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company in his argument vehemently submitted that though the claimant claims to be a person doing chilli business, but no material has been produced by him in that regard. On the other hand his statement before the doctor and the evidence of the doctor go to show that the claimant has declared himself to be a coolie at the time of accident and that his income as Rs.1,500/- p.m., as such the income taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 12. Except making a statement in his deposition as PW.1 about his alleged avocation and income, the claimant has not produced any material either to prove his avocation or the income. In that situation the notional income prevailing in the relevant year of accident is to be taken into consideration. The accident has occurred on 18.09.2008. As such, for the said relevant year 2008 coordinate benches of this Court are taking the notional income at Rs.4,250/- - p.m. Thus, in the case on hand also the same income is required to be taken. Since there is union of the fractured wounds and the medical evidence also to that effect percentage of disability assessed by the doctor due to the alleged mal union appears to be on higher side. As such, the restriction of the percentage of disability at 10% to the whole body, as concluded by the Tribunal appears to be a proper percentage to be taken in this case. As such, the quantum of compensation towards loss of future earning would be at Rs.4,250/- - x 12x14x10/- 100 = Rs.71,400/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.51,000/- which is awarded by the Tribunal for the difference amount of Rs.20,400/- the claimant/appellant is entitled to. 13. In view of the fact that the notional income of the claimant is now taken at Rs.4,250/- and the medical documents go to show that he was treated as an inpatient in the hospital from 19.09.2008 to 30.12.2008 for a period of three and a half months the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of income during treatment period requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, at the rate of Rs.4,250/- p.m. for a period of 3½ months he is entitled for Rs.14,875/-, after deducting a sum of Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the difference amount of Rs.5,875/- the claimant/appellant is entitled to. 14. Towards the loss of amenities the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The medical evidence as well the disability certificate go to show that there is shortening of fractured limb to a considerable extent. As such, the claimant has to bear with displeasure and discomfort in his life for his remaining lifetime. Thus, the compensation towards loss of amenities requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.10,000/- to raise it to a reasonable quantum. The compensation awarded towards conveyance being reasonable, it does not warrant any variation. 15. Towards future medical expenses the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the claimant has to undergo some more medical treatment including surgery, as such the claimant requires more amount than what is awarded. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company in his argument submitted that since the foreign implantations made in the body of the injured has already been removed, no further medication or surgery is required. 16. However, after going through the medical records, more particularly, the discharge summary and the evidence of PW.4, the doctor, the certified copies of which have been produced for perusal it goes to show that the claimant/injured requires future medical treatment. As such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.10,000/- to come to a reasonable amount. Thus, in total the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.46,275/which is in addition to Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads. 18. Thus, in total the claimant/appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs.46,275/- (Rupees Forty-six Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-five Only), which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. 18. Thus, in total the claimant/appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs.46,275/- (Rupees Forty-six Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-five Only), which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in MVC No.69/2009 dated 16.09.2010 is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at Rs.1,80,000/- is enhanced by a sum of Rs.46,275/-, thus fixing the total compensation at Rs.2,26,275/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty-six Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-five only). The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondents and the terms regarding deposit of the awarded amount, awarding the interest, its rate, terms regarding release of the amount awarded, shall remain unaltered. Draw modified award accordingly.