JUDGMENT : K.Somashekar, J. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.10.2013 rendered by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.6843/2012, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,49,200/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal is that on 10.11.2012, at about 8.30 p.m. when the petitioner was proceeding in the lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-03-C-7369 near Amma Kutira, NH-48, BM Road, Hirisave village, Hirisave Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, at that time, driver of canter lorry bearing Regn.No.KA- 41/7472 came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry he was driving. As a result, he suffered injuries. The accident took place solely on the part of rash and negligent driving of driver of canter lorry. Respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent no.1 being the insurer are liable to pay compensation. On these grounds, the claim petition was filed by the petitioner seeking compensation. 4. After service of notice, respondents entered appearance through their counsel and resisted the claim petition by filing statement of objections to the claim petition denying the entire petition averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues for consideration. To prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got examined Doctor as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 was got marked. After hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.3,49,200/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date petition till realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation on various amongst other grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the approach of the Tribunal in appreciation of the evidence available on record is illegal and against the law of evidence and also against the principles of settled law. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the approach of the Tribunal in appreciation of the evidence available on record is illegal and against the law of evidence and also against the principles of settled law. He contends that the Tribunal has committed error in denying the medical bills to an extent of Rs.1,03,792/- on the ground that the admission to the hospital by the claimant for the second time for the injuries sustained in the accident is doubtful. Denial of medical bill on the ground that injuries appear to be different from first admission, is bad in law. He further contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards future loss of earning capacity is on lower side, as against the income of the petitioner as driver and so also, the disability factor. Having regard to the nature of injuries, the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of earning during laid up period. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant seeks for enhancement of compensation by re-assessing and reappreciating the entire evidence on record. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - insurance company contends that the drivers of both the vehicles were not holding valid and effective driving licence. Further, he contends that PW.2 is not a Doctor who treated the petitioner therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability factor by taking 10% disability. He contends that the Tribunal on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record has awarded just and fair compensation and the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference of this Court. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Keeping in view the strenuous contentions as taken by learned counsel for the appellant and so also learned counsel for the respondent - insurance company, it is relevant to state that PW.1, while reiterating the petition averments has specifically stated that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the canter lorry. In support of his claim he has produced documents such as Ex.P1 - FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 - wound certificate, Ex.P3 - spot mahazar, Ex.P4 - IMV report, Ex.P5 charge sheet. On evaluation of oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending canter. On evaluation of oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending canter. 9. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that in the said accident he has sustained Type IIIA open comminuted fracture of right proximal tibia. PW.2 is the Doctor, but admittedly, he has not treated the petitioner. In his evidence, he has stated that petitioner has suffered large open Type III comminuted shattered fracture, right tibia adjacent to the right knee plus fibula. He was admitted to Hosmat hospital for 3 days for the first instance from 11.11.2012 to 13.11.2012 and underwent surgery i.e., wound debridement and external fixation of right leg, thorough wound debridement and suturing of the left foot was done. Further, during the second admission, petitioner took treatment from 26.12.2012 to 29.12.2012 and underwent surgery i.e., wound debridement large muscle flap plus split skin grafting on 27.12.2012. The Doctor assessed that the petitioner is suffering from permanent physical impairment to the right lower limb to an extent of 55% and 19% to the whole body. 10. Pw.1 in his evidence has stated that by avocation he is a driver. He is aged 54 years and had income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. But no documentary evidence has been produced in this behalf. Hence, the Tribunal by assessing the notional income of petitioner at Rs.6,000/- p.m. and applying multiplier of 11' and taking disability at 10% has awarded compensation of Rs.79,200/- towards loss of future earning capacity. But the same appears to be on lower side having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, duration of treatment taken by him and so also, the medical evidence. Though PW.2 is not a treated Doctor, but that itself is not sufficient to discard his version that the claimant had suffered medical disability. PW.2 in his evidence has stated that petitioner is suffering permanent physical impairment to the right lower limb to an extent of 55% which comes to 19% to whole body. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to hold disability at 15% as against 10% taken by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has taken monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to hold disability at 15% as against 10% taken by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has taken monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/-. The accident is of the year 2012 and as per the guidelines and illustrations of the Lok Adalath chart, the notional income that has to be taken in the absence of proof of income for the relevant year is Rs.7,000/- p.m. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of future earning capacity is re-worked as follows: Rs.7,000 x 12 x 11 x 15% = 1,38,600/- 11. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and comforts. But having regard to the evidence of PW.1 and the nature of injuries sustained by him, it will be difficult for him to carry out his avocation as a Driver for the rest of his life. Hence, I deem it just and proper to award additional sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. 12. Further, due to the accidental injuries and the duration of treatment taken on different occasions, the petitioner could not have attended to his duties for a period of six months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.7,000 x 6) towards loss of income during laid up period. 13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment, attendant charge, diet, conveyance, and other charges. Now that the compensation towards loss of income during treatment having been re-assessed separately, the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is scaled down to Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charge, diet, conveyance and other charges. 14. The Tribunal while assessing disability factor of the petitioner has awarded compensation Rs.79,200/- towards loss of future earning capacity and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. Hence, there appears to be duplication while awarding compensation towards the disability factor. In this appeal, the compensation under loss of future earning capacity having been re-assessed and awarded a sum of Rs.1,38,600/-, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability in a sum of Rs.50,000/- is hereby absolved. 15. Hence, there appears to be duplication while awarding compensation towards the disability factor. In this appeal, the compensation under loss of future earning capacity having been re-assessed and awarded a sum of Rs.1,38,600/-, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards permanent disability in a sum of Rs.50,000/- is hereby absolved. 15. As per Ex.P2 - wound certificate, the petitioner has suffered lacerated wound over distal part of right leg which is grievous in nature and as per Ex.P8 - discharge summary, the petitioner has suffered Type III A open comminuted fracture of right proximal tibia and as per Ex.P9 - discharge summary for the second admission, the petitioner has suffered uniting comp type II fracture both bones right leg with external fixation in situ with wound and has underwent major surgery for external fixator and removal and also split skin grafting and he has to undergo future medical treatment. Hence, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment taken by him and also keeping in view the evidence of PW.2 - Doctor, I deem it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses. 16. The petitioner to prove the medical expenditure incurred by him, has produced Ex.P10, the hospital and medical receipts totally 58 in numbers amounting to Rs.2,20,975.96. The medical and hospital bills at Ex.P.10 are of both first and second admission. The Tribunal while awarding compensation towards medical expenses has granted only Rs.1,20,000/- and declined to award medical expenses amounting to Rs.1,03,792/- on the ground that injuries mentioned in the first admission differs from the injuries mentioned in the second admission and further the petitioner has not let in any evidence to establish that the injuries shown in the second admission are also due to the accidental injuries. But however, the evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant was admitted to the Hosmat Hospital for second time within one month of the accident for the injuries sustained in the accident. But however, the evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant was admitted to the Hosmat Hospital for second time within one month of the accident for the injuries sustained in the accident. Even as per Ex.P9 - discharge summary coupled with evidence of PW.2 - Doctor indicates that on 26.12.2012 the petitioner was admitted to Hosmat Hospital with a history "patient is follow up case of type III A communited fracture proximal tibia right operated with external fixation on 11.11.2012" and took treatment for 4 days and he had suffered thorough wound debridement, large muscle flap plus split skin grafting was done. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires consideration relating to medical bills for remaining sum of Rs.1,03,792/-. Hence, considering the nature of injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to award another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure. 17. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:- Particulars Compensation awarded by MACT Compensati on by this Court Pain and suffering 40,000 40,000 Attendant charge, diet, conveyance 30,000 15,000 Loss of earning during laid up period - 42,000 Medical expenditure 1,20,000 2,20,000 For permanent disability 50,000 Absolved Loss of future earning capacity 79,200 1,38,600 Loss of amenities and comfort 30,000 60,000 Future medical expenses - 40,000 Total 3,49,200 5,55,600 Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.5,55,600/- as against Rs.3,49,200/- awarded by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest for the compensation awarded towards future medical expenses. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,06,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. (excluding Rs.40,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses) from the date of petition, till realisation. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.6843/2012, is modified accordingly. Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation enhanced by this Court, along with interest accrued, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation enhanced by this Court, along with interest accrued, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. However, the impugned judgment and award, in so far as it relates to interest and deposit is concerned, shall remain unaltered. Office to draw the decree accordingly.