JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2009, passed in M.V.C.No.1440/2006 on the file of the MACT, Bengaluru ( the Tribunal for short), questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 29.03.2005 at about 6.15 a.m., the claimant along with her son were going from Bengaluru to Namakkal via Hosur to bring her daughter-inlaw and grandchild in the Santro car bearing registration No.KA- 01-MD-4635 and when their car reached Hosur Krishnagiri Highway near Melumalai Bus stand, the claimant noticed a trailer lorry bearing registration No.KA-03-D-1715 halted on the left side of the road. The driver of the lorry without giving any signal, suddenly started to move the lorry by steering the lorry to right for taking U turn. As a result, the accident occurred and both of them sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. 4. In pursuance of the claim petition, notice was ordered against the respondents. Respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed exparte. The other respondents appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement and contested the matter. The claimant in order to substantiate her claim, examined herself as P.W.2 and also examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.3 doctor and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 24. The respondents did not lead any evidence, but got marked the copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R.1. 5. The Tribunal after considering the material available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.77,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimant has come up in this appeal contending that the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal ought not to have deducted the amount, which has been reimbursed by the TTK. The same is based on contractual liability between the claimant and the insurer. 7. The other contention of the claimant is that the claimant was subjected to surgery on 30.03.2005 for interlocking of nailing and further on 19.04.2005 for replating of left humerus and after admission for second time on 10.08.2005. The same is based on contractual liability between the claimant and the insurer. 7. The other contention of the claimant is that the claimant was subjected to surgery on 30.03.2005 for interlocking of nailing and further on 19.04.2005 for replating of left humerus and after admission for second time on 10.08.2005. The claimant has suffered fracture of both the bones of left limb i.e., fracture of left femur and left humerus and also since had left wrist drop. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and suffering and the same is very meagre. 8. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of future income and has committed an error in awarding only an amount of Rs.7,000/- under the head conveyance, Rs.5,000/- under the head attendant charges and an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head discomfort and loss of amenities. The doctor, who has been examined before the Tribunal as P.W.3 assessed the disability of 30% to left lower limb and 20% to her left upper limb and to the whole body at 17%. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 9. The learned counsel reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memo and further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation and committed an error in deducting the amount claimed under the medi-claim and ought not to have deducted the same. The Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses based on Exs.P.6 and 8. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that this is the accident of the year 2005 and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and suffering, which is just and reasonable. The Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head medical expenses after deducting medi-claim. The Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and hence it does not require interference of this Court. 11. Having heard the arguments of the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting the medi-claim benefit availed by the claimant? (iii) What order? (ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting the medi-claim benefit availed by the claimant? (iii) What order? Point No.(i): 12. On perusal of the material available on record, the claimant has produced the wound certificate, which is marked as Exs.P.11 and 12 and the same discloses that she has suffered the fracture of left humerus and left femur and she was subjected to surgery for interlocking of nailing and she was also subjected to second surgery for replating of left humerus and she was admitted to hospital on 29.03.2005 and discharged on 20.4.2005 and she was an inpatient for a period of 22 days. She was again admitted to hospital for the second time on 08.08.2005 for a period of five days and was subjected to surgery and discharged on 13.08.2005. 13. Having taken note of the fracture of upper limb and lower limb, particularly fracture of humerus and femur and also the fact that she was an inpatient for a period of 27 days and having taken note of the accident was taken place in 2005, the Tribunal ought to have awarded little higher compensation under the head pain and suffering. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.40,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of income of the claimant. The doctor has deposed in respect of disability to upper limb and lower limb and whole body disability at 17%. I do not find any error in calculating the whole body disability of 17%, since the disability assessed by the doctor is 30% to left lower limb and 20% to the left upper limb. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of income. The claimant is a house wife aged about 60 years and this Court cannot ignore the services of a house wife. Having taken note that the accident is of the year 2005, it is appropriate to take the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Having taken the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and applying the relevant multiplier of 9 and disability at 17%, the loss of income comes to Rs.55,080/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 9 x 17%). 15. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- under the head conveyance and an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head attendant charges. Having taken the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and applying the relevant multiplier of 9 and disability at 17%, the loss of income comes to Rs.55,080/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 9 x 17%). 15. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- under the head conveyance and an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head attendant charges. The claimant was in the hospital for a period of 27 days on two occasions. When such being the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lesser side and the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 16. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head discomfort and loss of amenities. The claimant was aged about 60 years as on the date of the accident and disability assessed by the doctor is 17% to the whole body and she has to lead her rest of life with disability of 17%. Hence, the compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- as against Rs.10,000/-. Point (ii): 17. The Tribunal has deducted an amount of Rs.2,13,000/- under the head medical expenses on the ground that the claimant has got reimbursed the same under the mediclaim scheme i.e., TTK Health Care Services. Other than the said amount, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head medical expenses. Now the question before this Court is whether the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting the said amount. This Court in its judgment in the case of SHAHEED AHMED v. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT AND ANOTHER, (2008) 4 KCCR 2305 held that the amount received by the claimants from medi-claim policy cannot be deducted from the total compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act for accidental injury. 18. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of BINUP KUMAR R. v. PRABHAKAR H.G. AND ANOTHER,2010 ACJ 2742, has observed that the amount claimed by the claimants under the medi-claim policy will have to be deducted while awarding damage under the head medical expenses inasmuch as there cannot be a double payment under the very same head. 19. 19. In view of the contra conclusion of the respective Single Judge, the matter was referred to the Division Bench and the Division Bench in M.F.A.No.6950/2007 c/w. M.F.A.Nos.6952/2007 and 15422/2007 (MV), considered the reference and discussed in detail whether the medi-claim policy amount could be awarded or to be deducted. 20. Having considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HELEN C. REBELLO AND OTHERS v. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, (1999) ACJ 10 , discussed in detail and distinquished the said judgment with regard to the life insurance policy and other aspects. This Court also discussed the judgment in the case of MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PRIYANK, (2000) ACJ 701 . 21. Having considered the material available on record and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, the Division Bench has taken a decision that the amount received by the claimant under the medi-claim policy is required to be deducted from the total compensation awardable to the claimants under the head medical expenses . Indeed, if the claimant has not received any amount under the medi-claim policy, the Tribunal is required to assess the amount expended by the claimant for the medical expenses and suitably award with reference to the bills produced by them. It is further observed that if the amount awarded under the medi-claim policy is much less than the actual amount expended by the claimant towards medical expenses, the shortfall or the balance is also required to be made good by the tort-feasor. Therefore, the determination of compensation on the head of medical expenses would in any case have to be made by the Tribunal. In other words, if the amount received under the medi-claim policy is less than what has been determined by the Tribunal, the former would have to be deducted from the latter. On the other hand, if the amount received under the medi-claim policy is higher than what is determined by the Tribunal, then no compensation under the head of medical expenses can be awarded by the Tribunal. It is further observed that any compensation received by the injured-claimant on account of an accident policy cannot be deducted from the compensation determined by the Tribunal. 22. It is further observed that any compensation received by the injured-claimant on account of an accident policy cannot be deducted from the compensation determined by the Tribunal. 22. In view of the definite finding of the Division Bench judgment of this Court and also having considered the material available on record, the Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs.2,13,000/- on the head of medical expenses received under the medi-claim policy and difference amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded. When such being the case, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in deducting the amount of Rs.2,13,000/-. Hence, I answer point (ii) as negative. 23. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 05.09.2009, passed in M.V.C.No.1440/2006, is modified granting compensation of Rs.1,65,080/- as against Rs.77,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. (i) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount within eight weeks from today. (ii) The Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.