JUDGMENT : MFA No.4109/2013 is by the insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of quantum MFA Crob. No.152/2014 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. As these appeal and Cross-objection have arisen out of the common judgment and award dated 19-01-2013 passed in MVC No.19/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at T. Narasipura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of finally. 3. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident occurred on 04-10-2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-02/C-7452 by its driver and liability of the insurer of the said lorry, the only point arises for consideration in these appeal and cross objection is: “whether compensation of Rs.9,58,745/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for reduction or enhancement?”. 4. Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer of the offending vehicle submits that, the claimant even after sustaining injuries in the accident has continued employment as Food Inspector in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka, as such, there is no loss of future income. The Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter has committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.4,45,500/- towards loss of future income. He submits that even compensation awarded under other heads is also on higher side. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and dismissing the cross-objection filed by the claimant. 5. Sri. H.P. Veerabhadraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that, in the accident the claimant had sustained crush injuries to his left hand, and his left hand up to elbow was amputated and with great difficulty he is attending his duty and finding difficulty to attend to his day to day affairs. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the same was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.4,45,500/- towards loss of future income and the compensation awarded under other heads is on the lower side. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the same was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.4,45,500/- towards loss of future income and the compensation awarded under other heads is on the lower side. Therefore, he prays for dismissing the appeal preferred by the insurer and allowing the cross-objections filed by the claimant by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. As per Ex.P7 wound certificate, the claimant had sustained crush injury to his left hand forearm with compromise vascular injury/vascularity, loss of viability and gross contamination. The said injuries are described as grievous in nature. Later his left hand below elbow was amputated, grafting and wound debridement was done on 12-04-2008 and discharged on 13-11-2008. The injuries sustained and treatment underwent by the claimant are also evident from Ex.P.11, discharge summary, Ex.P15 and 16, photographs with C.D., Ex.C-3/deposition of the doctor, Ex.C4/Case sheet; Ex.C-5/Out-patient Slip, Ex.C6/X-ray corroborated by the oral evidence of the claimant examined as P.W.1 and the doctor examined as C.W.1. 7. C.W.1/Dr.Umesh Kumar who was examined through the Court Commissioner has deposed that the claimant cannot do any work with the assistance of his left hand throughout his future life. He has suffered with the amputation of left hand and to fix artificial left hand, he requires a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and after every two years, battery of the artificial limb is required to be replaced which costs about Rs.2,00,000/- per battery. He has further deposed that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 80% to the left upper limb. 8. Considering the crush injuries sustained by the claimant to his left hand, which resulted in amputation upto elbow. Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is on the lower side and it deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.50,000/- and reassess the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head pain and suffering. 9. As, Rs.26,120/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant at Ex.P9 series supported with the prescription of the doctor produced at Ex.P10 series, it is just and proper and there is no scope for either reduction or enhancement of the compensation under this head. 10. 9. As, Rs.26,120/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is based on the medical bills produced by the claimant at Ex.P9 series supported with the prescription of the doctor produced at Ex.P10 series, it is just and proper and there is no scope for either reduction or enhancement of the compensation under this head. 10. The claimant was treated as inpatient for a period of 8 days in BGS hospital, Mysore, thereafter he continued his treatment as out patient for long time and he was under rest for about two months. Considering the duration of treatment, Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards incidental expenses, such as food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges during the treatment period is just and proper and there is no scope for either reduction or enhancement of compensation under this head. As Rs.37,125/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during the laid up period is based on number of days leave availed by him for treatment and salary he was drawing, it is just and proper and there is no scope of either reduction or enhancement of compensation under this head. 11. The claimant who was working as Food Inspector in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka before the accident has continued his employment after treatment and rest and it is not the case of the claimant that after the accident he has discontinued his service. As such there is no loss of future income. The Tribunal without considering this material aspect of the matter has committed a grave error in awarding a sum of Rs.4,45,500/- towards future loss of income by considering his salary as Rs.14,995/- p.m., and the disability caused to the whole body at 25%. The claimant in order to maintain his family and provide education to his children, has continued his employment with great difficulty and inconvenience. The doctor has deposed that claimant after amputation of left hand, upto elbow cannot do any work with the help of his left hand and he has to suffer this discomfort and inconvenience throughout his life. Considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- under head loss of amenities. Therefore, it deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. 12. Considering this aspect of the matter, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- under head loss of amenities. Therefore, it deserves to be enhanced by another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. 12. That on account of amputation of left hand upto elbow there is disfiguration in his physical appearance. He would be having hesitation to attend public functions. Therefore it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards disfiguration and it is awarded. 13. As Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards the cost of artificial limb is based on the evidence of doctor, it is just and proper and does not call for either reduction or enhancement. Thus, the claimant is entitled for following compensation: Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000-00 Medical expenses Rs. 26,120-00 Incidental expenses Rs. 50,000-00 Loss of income during the laid up period Rs. 37,125-00 Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000-00 Disfiguration of hand Rs.1,00,000-00 Future medical expenses i.e., cost of artificial limb Rs.2,50,000-00 Rs.8,13,245-00 In all, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,13,245/- as against Rs.9,58,745/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the following order: MFA No.4109/2013 preferred by the insurance company is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,13,245/- as against Rs.9,58,745/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The insurance company after deducting the amount if any already deposited is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount before the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount if any deposited in the above appeal, before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimant, in terms of the award of the Tribunal. In view of partly allowing the appeal preferred by the insurance company and reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the cross-objection preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation does not survive for consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.