JUDGMENT B.M.Shyam Prasad, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent insurer with their consent for final disposal and perused the records. 2. The appellant claimant in MVC No.409/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (For short 'Tribunal') under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation. The Tribunal has partly allowed the appellant's claim petition in MVC No.409/2011 by its impugned judgment dated 7.11.2012 granting a sum of Rs.10,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization calling upon the insurer to deposit the amount. The amount of Rs.10,500/- includes a global sum of Rs.7,000/- for the injuries suffered and a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards repair of the appellant's moped. 3. The appellant's case is that on 17.9.2010, when he was standing at Ramapura Circle, Big Banyan Tree, Tavarekere Road with his moped parked, a motor cyclist who was rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle insured with the insurer respondent dashed against him. He was grievously injured in this road accident and he was shifted to Mathru Hospital, Kengeri for treatment immediately after the accident. He was inpatient with the aforesaid hospital on three occasion viz., between 17.9.2010 and 22.9.2010, 10.11.2010 to 14.11.2010 and 6.7.2011 to 8.7.2011. He suffered comminuted fracture of right leg and therefore he was operated upon for internal fixators, and he also had to undergo surgery for removal of fixators. The appellant's further case is that he has suffered permanent disability because of the mal-union of the fractured bones and as such, he would be entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.4,80,000/-. 4. In support of his case, the appellant has examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, who operated upon him at the aforesaid hospital, is examined as PW.2. The appellant has marked Police records, the medical records issued from Mathru Hospital including X-rays and the different bills to prove the factum of accident, injuries sustained by him, the extent of the resultant disability in him and the expenses incurred by him. The medical records include the Wound Certificate and the Discharge Summary(ies) and Case Sheet(s) maintained by the Hospital on three occasions when he was hospitalized and operated upon. 5. The medical records include the Wound Certificate and the Discharge Summary(ies) and Case Sheet(s) maintained by the Hospital on three occasions when he was hospitalized and operated upon. 5. The Tribunal has disbelieved the medical records and the nature of injuries essentially on two counts i.e., the Tribunal has opined that certain medical bills are duplicated to exaggerate the claim and the X-rays marked as exhibits do not bear the appellant's name or other details. The Tribunal has opined because the X-rays do not bear the appellant's name and other details, they do not corroborate the other medical evidence and as such, the appellant's case of multiple injury and resultant disability cannot be believed and the appellant would only be entitled to a total sum of Rs.10,500/- as aforesaid. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute about the accident or the liability of the insurer and the only dispute in the present appeal is as regards the assessment of the disability and the compensation awarded. The learned counsel relying upon the Wound Certificate, Case Sheets, Operation Records and the Discharge Summaries from Mathru Hospital and the evidence of the doctor PW.2 (Dr. Kishore Kumar M) submits that there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the appellant suffered comminuted fracture of distal end of both the bones of the right leg or that the appellant had to be hospitalized on three occasions and had to undergo surgeries for internal fixators and their removal. The Tribunal could not have brushed aside these consistent and overwhelming evidence only because the X-rays did not contain the name of the appellant or the other details. The learned counsel further submits that the doctor, who has operated upon the appellant both for fixing of fixators and their removal, has opined that the appellant has suffered permanent disability of 57% of the lower limb and 19% of the whole body. But, other than a supposed exaggeration and an error nothing has been placed on record to disbelieve the oral evidence or the corroborating medical records like Wound Certificate, Case Sheets, Operation Records and the Discharge Summaries. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant's unchallenged evidence is that he was into milk vending business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But, other than a supposed exaggeration and an error nothing has been placed on record to disbelieve the oral evidence or the corroborating medical records like Wound Certificate, Case Sheets, Operation Records and the Discharge Summaries. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant's unchallenged evidence is that he was into milk vending business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the claimant would be entitled for reasonable compensation, as computed in law, towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, loss of income during laid up period, nourishment and attendant charges and loss of amenities. 7. The learned counsel for the insurer, arguing in support of the Tribunal's judgment, submits that the Tribunal, while rightly appreciating the evidence on record, has correctly opined that X-rays do not bear the name and the details of the appellant which creates doubt and this doubt is accentuated with the effort to rely upon bills which are fabricated. The learned counsel for the Insurer also argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and no interference is called for submitting that the medical records are not rightly believed by the Tribunal because the medical records refer to past, or old, injury with mal-union. 8. The questions that arise for consideration are: (a) Whether the appellant, based on the evidence on record is able to establish that he has suffered serious injuries resulting in functional disability with pain and suffering and loss of amenities., and (b) If the appellant is able to establish the afore, what would be the just and reasonable compensation that the appellant would be entitled to? 9. The appellant, apart from the different medical bills and his own evidence, relies upon the ocular evidence of Dr.Kishore Kumar M, the consultant Orthopedic Surgeon and the undisputed Wound Certificate (Ex.P.6). This evidence is that the appellant has suffered comminuted fracture of the distal end of both the bones of the right leg with certain abrasions. He was hospitalized intermittently over a period of 10 months from the date of the accident; on the first occasion he had to undergo surgery for fixation of plate, screw and nail. He developed certain difficulties and therefore, he was later admitted in the month of November. He was discharged after four days in the hospital. He was again readmitted in the month of July 2011 for removal of implants. He developed certain difficulties and therefore, he was later admitted in the month of November. He was discharged after four days in the hospital. He was again readmitted in the month of July 2011 for removal of implants. These circumstances are overwhelmingly borne out by the Discharge Summary issued by the hospital on the aforesaid three occasions as well as the Case Sheets maintained by the hospital on these occasions. The learned counsel for the insurer places reliance upon the observation in the case sheet maintained at the time of appellant's third admission about an old malunited injury. 10. In the light of the evidence discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the reference to an old mal-united injury in the third Case Sheet could only refer to the injury for which the appellant was first hospitalized, about nine months prior to the date of the third admission i.e., immediately after the accident. This Court is also of the considered view that the medical records referred to and the doctor's evidence also overwhelm any doubt because of any error or deficiency in the X-rays. It is pertinently observed that there is no suggestion in the doctor's cross-examination to elicit a response about the error in the X-ray. Therefore, this Court concludes that the Tribunal has erred in its conclusion as regards the evidentiary value of the medical records, and this Court also opines that the appellant is able to establish that he suffered comminuted fracture of distal end of both the bones of the right leg in the road accident on 17.9.2010 leading to his hospitalization and surgeries for internal fixators and their removal. As such, the appellant would be entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 11. The unchallenged evidence as regards the appellant's vocation is that he was, at the time of the accident, earning livelihood as a milk vendor. This vocation requires moving about, and there would be impediments if the injuries suffered by the appellant have mal-united. The doctor, PW.2, has opined that there is mal-union and the resultant permanent disability of the whole body is 19%. This Court, given the nature of the appellant's vocation and the assessment of the permanent disability of the whole body and the disability of the limb, is of the considered view that the functional disability could reasonably be taken at 10%. This Court, given the nature of the appellant's vocation and the assessment of the permanent disability of the whole body and the disability of the limb, is of the considered view that the functional disability could reasonably be taken at 10%. Though the appellant asserts his monthly income at Rs.15,000/- per month from milk vending business, he is unable to place any evidence of any actual income. For purposes of settlement before the Lok Adalath in cases arising out of road accidents in the year 2010, notional income is taken at Rs.5500/- and this Court is of the considered view that a similar sum should be taken for computation of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity. There is no dispute that the appellant was aged 50 years as of the date of the accident and in cases where the claimant is aged between 46 and 50 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 13'. Therefore, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.85,800/- (Rs.5500x12x13x10%) as loss of future earning. 12. The appellant was under treatment for over a period of 10 months as mentioned above and this would necessarily mean that he would not have been able to work for a reasonable period of time. As such, it would be reasonable to award three months salary towards loss of income for laid up period in a sum of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.5,500 x 3). The appellant has suffered comminuted fracture of distal end of both the bones of the right leg and this has resulted in mal-union with impairment as discussed above. This essentially demonstrates loss of amenities and pain and suffering. It would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities as is normally awarded in cases of injuries as suffered by the appellant. As regards medical bills, the learned counsel submits that the bills for a total sum of Rs.97,000/- are produced but the Tribunal has disbelieved the bills for a sum of Rs.90,000/- and the learned counsel is not able to persuade this Court to opine that the Tribunal has erred in its conclusion in this regard. Therefore, a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards medical bills, which would be undisputed, is awarded. The appellant would also be entitled for a further sum towards nourishment, attendant charges and conveyance. Therefore, a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards medical bills, which would be undisputed, is awarded. The appellant would also be entitled for a further sum towards nourishment, attendant charges and conveyance. This Court, given the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant, the surgeries undergone by him and the time over which he has undergone surgeries, is of the considered view that a further sum of Rs.30,000/- would be reasonable towards nourishment, attendant charges and transportation. Thus, the questions framed are answered in favour of the appellant and the appellant is awarded a total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,83,800/- computed as follows: S No. Description Amount 1. Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000.00 2. Loss of Amenities Rs.25,000.00 3. Loss of Future earning ability (Rs.5500x12x13x10%) Rs.85,800.00 4. Loss of Income during laid up period (Rs.5500 x 3) Rs.16,500.00 5. Medical Expenses Rs.7000.00 6. Nourishment, Attendant charges and Transportation Rs.30,000.00 7. Total Rs.1,94,300.00 8. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.10,500.00 9. Enhanced Compensation Rs.1,83,800.00 For the foregoing, the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award in MVC No.409/2011 dated 7.11.2012 is modified holding that the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,83,800/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The insurer - respondent shall deposit such enhanced compensation with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. No costs.