JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the III Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Itinerating at Mulbagal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for short), in its judgment and award dated 2.9.2009, in MVC No.167 of 2005. 2. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that he sustained compound comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of right clavicle and other injuries and has taken treatment as inpatient for 55 days, underwent surgery for closed reduction, and thereafter, he was an outpatient for considerable long period and the accidental injuries has resulted in shortening of his right lower limb by 3 cm. He is suffering with the disability, but the Tribunal has not appreciated any of these factors. He has further stated that though he has produced the medical bills of Rs.3,39,389/-, the Tribunal erroneously came to the conclusion that he being aged more than 65 years, due to old age, suffering from various other diseases, was not eligible for compensation of the claimed amount towards medical expenditure and has awarded a small sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. With this he has prayed for allowing the appeal. 3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 4. 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 respondent/s 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. 5. Therefore, the question of occurrence of accident and the alleged liability of the respondent/s 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. 5. 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: Pain and suffering Rs.61,000.00/- Medical expenses Rs.50,000.00/- Attendant charges Rs.2,400.00/- Conveyance Rs.5,000.00/- Extra nourishment Rs.3,000.00/- Total Rs.1,21,400.00/- Learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments mainly canvassed on a single point alleging that the quantum of compensation awarded towards medical expenses was very meager and far below than the actual. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that the injured was aged 65 years at the time of the accident, as such, accidental injuries has led to severe complications, including cardiac problem, as such, the appellant was constrained to take appropriate treatment for all the accidental complications. He further submitted that though the Tribunal was not expected to expect the proof of the averments to such a high degree as is expected to be done in a criminal case, but, it did not oblige to do so. The medical records from Exs.P-4 to P8, Ex.-P11 and Ex.P12 show the continuation in the treatment undergone by the injured. This itself shows that the accidental injuries has led to several complications in the health of the claimant. On the contrary, without any proper basis, holding that the alleged cardiac complaint was not related to the injuries suffered by him, the Tribunal has awarded a paltry sum towards medical expenses. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company in his arguments vehemently submitted that keeping the accidental injuries in the forefront and for the name sake, the claimant has got his entire body overhauled. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, there is no nexus between the cardiac problem and the accidental injuries sustained by the claimant. Learned counsel further submitted that alleged internal injuries are not bodily injuries and that it is only the external bodily injuries that can be considered for compensation in a motor vehicle accident claims case. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation. Learned counsel further submitted that alleged internal injuries are not bodily injuries and that it is only the external bodily injuries that can be considered for compensation in a motor vehicle accident claims case. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation. As such, it does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 7. The claimant got himself examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. He also got examined one Dr. Jayaram, a Medical Professionist as PW-2 in his support. He also got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P24. Ex.P-4 is the copy of the wound certificate. Exs.P-6, P-8, P-10, P-11, P-12 & P-13 are the discharge summaries issued by the different hospitals. Ex.P7 is a medical record from NIMHANS, Bengaluru. Taking support of these medical records, the claimant has contended that the accidental injuries has led to complications and he has taken treatment at different hospitals. The wound certificate at Ex.P-4 indicates that in the accident in question, the appellant sustained compound comminuted fracture to both bones of right leg and fracture of right clavicle. In addition to these two grievous injuries, he also sustained another wound on the face. Towards pain and agony for comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- and towards fracture of clavicle, it has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/-. It has to be borne in mind that accident has taken place in the year 2004, as such, the reasonableness of the compensation as on the relevant year is to be considered. The sum awarded towards fracture of both bones of right leg is a reasonable sum. However, the quantum of compensation awarded towards fracture to the right clavicle deserves to be enhanced by a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly towards ‘pain and suffering’, in the place of Rs.61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in total, I enhance it by a sum of Rs.5,000/- and make it Rs.66,000/-. 8. Towards attendant charges, Tribunal below considering that the injured must have taken the services of attendant for a period of 30 days, has awarded a sum of Rs.2,400/- at the rate of Rs.80/per day. Taking the said amount at Rs.100/- per day, the said quantum deserves to be enhanced and fixed at Rs.3,000/-. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment. Taking the said amount at Rs.100/- per day, the said quantum deserves to be enhanced and fixed at Rs.3,000/-. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by him as could be seen from Ex.P-4 and the period of his hospitalization for the treatment towards the said injuries, a reasonable sum required to be awarded in the case would be Rs.5,000/-. The same is enhanced and fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Even after considering the fact that the claimant had made use of ambulance several times for his movement to and from hospital to his residence, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. However, the circumstances of the case demands it had to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.3,000/- and to fix it to at Rs.8,000/-. 10. The claimant in his evidence as PW1 has stated that immediately after the accident, the general public shifted him to VISL Hospital, Bhadravathi for the first aid, then he was referred to major hospital at Bengaluru for further follow up treatment. Accordingly, he was shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, where he was admitted as an inpatient on 22.6.2004. From there, he was shifted to Bharathi Nusring Home, Bengaluru, on the same day. The doctor surgically operated him for wound debraidment with external fixation, CT scan, X-rays and other treatment. He was discharged on 27.6.2004 and further referred to KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru. In the said hospital, doctor operated his right leg bones on 6.7.2004 and discharged on 19.7.2004. Thereafter, KIMS doctors referred the claimant to higher centre for cardiac care. He was shifted from Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Heart Care, Bengaluru, from where he was discharged on 26.7.2004. The doctors operated his heart and did the angiogram. He was however directed to continue follow up treatment. Further, he has also taken treatment from Mallya Hospital, Bengaluru. Again for further pains and consequences, he was admitted to Neeralgi Trauma Care Clinic (attached to City Orthopaedic Hospital and Dr.S.R.Ramana Gowdara Nursing Home) on 18.8.2004 and operated on 20.8.2004 and discharged on 13.9.2004. Again he was readmitted on 16.11.2004 and discharged on the same day for proximal interlocking screw. He has stated that on the date of his evidence also, he has been suffering from pains and taking treatment from VISL hospital, Bhadravathi and other hospitals. Again he was readmitted on 16.11.2004 and discharged on the same day for proximal interlocking screw. He has stated that on the date of his evidence also, he has been suffering from pains and taking treatment from VISL hospital, Bhadravathi and other hospitals. Stating that he has spent Rs.5 lakhs towards operations and medical expenses, he produced medical bills worth Rs.3,39,389.20 ps. and got prescriptions and medical bills marked at Exs.P17 & P18. Denial suggestions made to him in the cross-examination were not admitted as true by this witness. It was also suggested to him that accident has not led to any complications in his health. 11. Claimant also examined one Dr.B.S.Jayaram said to be an Associate Professor in the Department of Orthopedics, KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru, as PW-2. The said doctor in his evidence has stated that in the year 2004, he has treated the claimant in their hospital on 28.6.2004 with the history of road traffic accident which occurred on 22.6.2004. He noticed deep lacerated wound over right side parietal bone, fracture of right clavicle and right leg comminuted fracture at lower 1/3rd and he has treated the patient for the said injuries. On 19.7.2004, the patient was discharged and referred to higher centre because patient developed antero lateral MYO cardial infraction. This witness has also stated that claimant was admitted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Heart Care from 20.7.2004 to 26.7.2004. He has further stated that on 20.8.2004, patient underwent surgery at Ramanna Gowdara Nursing Home for interlocking nails and follow up treatment was taken at the very hospital. He was subjected to a detailed cross-examination, wherein the denial suggestions made to him were not admitted as true by him. 12. It is based on the evidence of PW-2 and the medical records at Exs.P-4 to P-12, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ignored the medical documents and failed to notice that the injuries suffered by the injured, who was an aged person, has led to cardiac problems. 13. As already observed above, the wound certificate at Ex.P-4 does not mention anything about the cardiac problem. It only mentions about the lacerated wound in the form of a simple injury on the right side of face and scalp and two fractures, one to the right clavicle and the other on both bones of right leg. 13. As already observed above, the wound certificate at Ex.P-4 does not mention anything about the cardiac problem. It only mentions about the lacerated wound in the form of a simple injury on the right side of face and scalp and two fractures, one to the right clavicle and the other on both bones of right leg. Except the same, the wound certificate no where whispers anything about injuries on chest region or at least some tenderness on that part. The treatment and follow up sheet at VISL Hospital, Bhadravathi, which is marked at Ex.P-6, though mentions about the suturing of scalp wound done by administering general anesthesia, but the said document also does not mention anything about cardiac problem. However, the said hospital has referred the patient to higher institute for further management. Immediately, from VISL Hospital, Bhadravathi, the patient was shifted to NIMHANS, Bengaluru on 22.6.2004, where he was medically examined. As could be seen from Ex.P7, the case record of NIMHANS, Bengaluru, the injured was found with no active neurological problems. He was referred to orthopaedician for treatment of orthopedic injuries. 14. As per the advise from NIMHANS on the very same day i.e., on 22.6.2004, the claimant was shifted from NIMHANS and was admitted as an inpatient at Bharathi Nursing Home, Bengaluru. The discharge summary at Ex.P-8 shows that the claimant was known hypertensive since 20 years and he was diagnosed for compound comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg Type-III and fracture of right clavicle. He was also kept under observation for head injuries if any. The patient/claimant was operated with wound debraidment with external fixation under epidural anesthesia on 23.6.2004. He was discharged from the said hospital on 27.6.2004 15. Up to the treatment of the claimant from VISL Hospital to Bharathi Nursing Home, including NIMHANS at Bengaluru, there is continuation in the treatment of the claimant with respect to the injuries i.e., fracture of right clavicle and fracture of right lower limb bones and also for suspected sustaining of head injuries. However, the subsequent case sheets/ discharge summaries at Exs.P-10 to P-13, which belongs to different hospitals, are the subject matter of dis-believement by the Tribunal and it is those medical documents which requires a detailed consideration. 16. Admittedly none of those discharge summaries from Exs. However, the subsequent case sheets/ discharge summaries at Exs.P-10 to P-13, which belongs to different hospitals, are the subject matter of dis-believement by the Tribunal and it is those medical documents which requires a detailed consideration. 16. Admittedly none of those discharge summaries from Exs. P-10 to P-13 speaks about the claimant undergoing any treatment in their hospitals with respect to the direct injuries noticed in the wound certificate at Ex.P-4 i.e., orthopedic problems in the form of fracture to the bones so also the alleged head injuries. However, the treatment after the discharge of the claimant from Bharathi Nursing Home, at various hospitals, are all with respect to the cardiac problem, including angioplasty. 17. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that those cardiac problems have erupted only because of the injury sustained by the claimant in the accident, who was aged 65 years at the time of accident. It is also his argument that it is only at the advise of the doctor, he was referred to KIMS hospital at Bengaluru and subsequently to various other hospitals. 18. No doubt, in the hospital records from Exs. P-10 to P-13, there appears to be some continuity in the treatment of the claimant date-wise, but whether the ailment for which he was treated in those hospitals have got any direct nexus with the accident in question is the point to be considered. Since Bharathi Nusiring Home is the last Nursing Home which has treated the injured for the orthopedic ailment which was the injury noted at the hospital at the first instance as could be seen from the wound certificate in Ex.P-4, it is the observations made by the said hospital regarding the future treatment and diagnosis made by it is of importance. Ex.P-8 the discharge summary of Bharathi Nursing Home clearly mentions that the patient was confortable after the fixator application and was healthy and culture was negative. He was advised to take Plastic Surgeon’s opinion. The same hospital has further continued mentioning that “patient attendants wants him to shift him to KIMS hospital for further management’. After mentioning this, it is also shown that patient was shifted to KIMS Hospital for further management. This finding recorded in Ex.P-8 is to be considered carefully. He was advised to take Plastic Surgeon’s opinion. The same hospital has further continued mentioning that “patient attendants wants him to shift him to KIMS hospital for further management’. After mentioning this, it is also shown that patient was shifted to KIMS Hospital for further management. This finding recorded in Ex.P-8 is to be considered carefully. It is because, had really in the opinion of the doctors at Bharathi Nursing Home, Bengaluru, the injured/patient was not required to be treated any further for his alleged ailment with the history of road traffic accident, they would have definitely mentioned that the patient was advised to higher hospital for further treatment. Normally, a hospital would not generally specifically name any particular hospital to be referred, unless according to the referring hospital, the required treatment is available only in that particular hospital, as such, the patient has to be necessarily referred to that particular hospital alone. In all other cases, they would refer for higher treatment or to a higher hospital. That is what the doctors have done in the instant case also in Exs.P-6 and P-7, whereas in Ex.P8, when the doctors have discharged the injured, they have clearly mentioned that it is the patient’s attendants who wants the patient to be shifted to KIMS Hospital for further management. Therefore, it is not the opinion of the hospital that the patient has to be referred to KIMS Hospital. As such, in the very same exhibit at P-8, at the end, the hospital has clearly mentioned that patient “shifted” to KIMS hospital. Otherwise, it would have written as patient was “referred” to KIMS hospital. Thus, it can be inferred that all further treatment undertaken by the claimant from and after Bharathi Nursing Home at Ex.P-8, are all at the desire of the claimant/injured and his attendant, but not at the instructions of the doctors who treated the claimant for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 19. The above finding gets further strength for the reason that in Ex.-P11, which is issued by KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru, nothing is mentioned about with what ailment, the patient was brought to them and what diagnosis the said hospital conducted. It is merely writing a finding that the patient is shifted to higher centre for higher care as patient has developed antero lateral MYO cardial infraction (MI). It is merely writing a finding that the patient is shifted to higher centre for higher care as patient has developed antero lateral MYO cardial infraction (MI). It has instructed to shift the patient for higher centre. Interestingly, nothing about road traffic accident has been mentioned in the said record. No where in Ex.-P11, it is mentioned that the alleged development of antero lateral MYO cardial infraction was due to the injuries sustained by the claimant in road traffic accident or due to any complications developed, if any, by the injured. As such, it gives a great doubt that the injured wanted himself to be treated for cardiac problem also, since Bharati Nursing Home did not refer him for the said treatment. As such, in order to get a reference by the doctor of their choice and the desire of the claimant, they got him shifted to KIMS hospital, where they could succeed in getting a reference as per Ex.-P11. This doubt gains strength also for the reason that the doctor who has issued Ex.-P11 was examined as PW-2, who no where in his evidence has stated that patient was diagnosed in their hospital exclusively for the injuries with the history of road traffic accident. On the other hand, said PW-2, apart from confining his evidence to what treatment he is said to have given and the document issued by their hospital at Ex.-P11, has also spoken about the treatment said to have been taken by the claimant subsequently at Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Heart Care and at Ramannnagoudar Nursing Home also. This further augment the suspicion that PW-2 has only pleased the claimant by filing his printed affidavit evidence in the manner as the claimant wanted. 20. The further medical records of the subsequent hospitals also, except the document at Ex.P13, does not mention anything about the history of road traffic accident and the nexus between the said accident and the alleged injury or the complaint for which the claimant was treated by them. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the subsequent treatment at KIMS hospital and at Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Heart Care and also the angioplast treatment given to the claimant were all as a consequence of the road traffic accident injuries sustained by the claimant, cannot be accepted. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the subsequent treatment at KIMS hospital and at Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Heart Care and also the angioplast treatment given to the claimant were all as a consequence of the road traffic accident injuries sustained by the claimant, cannot be accepted. That being the case, the medical bills produced by the claimant at Ex.P18 amounting to Rs.3,39,389/- was rightly not accepted in its face value by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal while confining the claim amount to Rs.50,000/-, has not considered the fact that the treatment meted to the claimant at Bharathi Nursing Home was also in continuation of the treatment given to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident and that in the said hospital, he was operated with wound debraidment with external fixation. It also did not consider Ex.P13 – a certificate issued by Neeralagi Trauma Care Clinic about his readmission for the removal of proximal interlocking screws which was done after administering local anastasia. Thus, when those medical bills are also considered and taken into account, along with other incidental bills, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal which is at Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses requires to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.80,000/-. 21. Though the Tribunal has given reasons for not awarding compensation under the head of ‘future loss of income’ due to the disabilities said to have been suffered by the claimant, which reasons are convincing, but it has not awarded any compensation towards ‘loss of amenities’. Even though the injured is a senior citizen, still the deprivation of amenities in his life is a deprivation. As such, he is entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of amenities’. Towards loss of amenities, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which is reasonable in the instant case. 22. Barring the above, the claimant/appellant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation or awarding of compensation under any other heads. 23. Thus, in total the claimant/appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs.1,10,600/- (Rupees One lakh Ten thousand Six hundred only), which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 24. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is allowed in part. 23. Thus, in total the claimant/appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of a sum of Rs.1,10,600/- (Rupees One lakh Ten thousand Six hundred only), which is in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 24. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 2.9.2009, passed by the III Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Itinerating at Mulbagal, in MVC No.167/2005, is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at Rs.1,21,400/- is enhanced by a sum of Rs.1,10,600/-, thus fixing the total compensation at Rs.2,32,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Thirtytwo thousand only). The rest of the order of the Tribunal with respect to fixing the liability upon the respondent/s 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.