JUDGMENT : The claimant is the appellant in this appeal and has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer) at Pondicherry in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1018 of 2008. 2. By the impugned Judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.93,500/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant under the following heads:- Heads of Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Compensation for 39% permanent disability @ Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability Rs.58,500/- Compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs.5,000/- Transport expenses to go to hospital etc. Rs.4,000/- Towards rich and nutritious food (extra nourishment) Rs.4,000/- Damage to clothes Rs.2,000/- Towards loss of income for two months Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.93,500/- 3. According to the appellant/claimant, the appellant/claimant has produced Ex.P.15-Disability Certificate and marked the same through P.W.2-Doctor who has fixed 42% permanent disability. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs.1500/- per percentage by considering the total disability at 39%. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that in absence of contra evidence by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, the evidence of an expert cannot be ignored. In this connection, a reference is drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Ilangovan Vs. S.Murali and others, in C.M.A (MD) No.426 of 2016 dated 05.01.2017 (2017) (1) TNMAC 251, wherein, in Paragraphs 6 to 8, reads as under:- “6. It is seen that as per the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, the appellant/claimant suffered a fracture in the right thigh bone and he has been operated and a steel plate and screw have been inserted by way of a surgery, resulting in restriction of movement. Further, he sustained injuries in the right hand and left side jaw. 7. P.W.2-Doctor determined the disability at 35%. However, the Tribunal without any contra evidence reduced the same to 30% and awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) towards disability. The said reduction is unwarranted in the absence of any contra evidence of experts and hence, this Court redetermines the disability at 35% and awards a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Five Thousand only) towards disability. 8. P.W3-Clerk from Anbu Hospital, Kumbakonam was examined and Ex.P.10-series of medical receipts have been marked to the tune of Rs.32,615/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen only). 8. P.W3-Clerk from Anbu Hospital, Kumbakonam was examined and Ex.P.10-series of medical receipts have been marked to the tune of Rs.32,615/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen only). However, without any discussion and finding, the Tribunal reduced the same to a sum of Rs.19,546/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Six only) and therefore, as per Ex.P.10-series of medical receipts marked through P.W.3, a sum of Rs.32,615/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen only) is awarded towards medical expenses.” 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation by applying the multiplier and the amount awarded towards medical expenses also has been restricted to Rs.5,000/- even though the appellant had spent sum of Rs.22,414/-. It is submitted that merely because xerox copies of medical bills were produced by itself cannot meant that the Tribunal ought to have restricted medical bills to only Rs.5,000/-. He submits that even the compensation under the conventional heads were also meagre and were liable to be enhanced. 6. Defending the impugned Judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the appellant/claimant has suffered minor fracture namely Malunion of third metacarpal left hand and multiple injuries all over his body and took treatment at General Hospital, Pondicherry as an inpatient and thereafter shifted to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai and was discharged on 20.09.2007. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant the 3rd respondent. 8. The accident is said to have taken place on 15.09.2007. The appellant/claimant had initially taken treatment at Pondicherry General Hospital and was thereafter shifted to Sri Ramachandra Hospital at Chennai and discharged on 20.09.2007. It indicates that the appellant/claimant has sustained injuries and was hospitalized for a period of more than five days. 9. The appellant/claimant have also produced Ex.P.9-Copy of the Medical Bills, to substantiate that the medical bills incurred for a sum of Rs.22,414/-. The Tribunal has however restricted the same to Rs.5,000/- on the ground that the appellant/claimant has produced xerox copies and the originals were not produced. 10. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation at Rs.58,500/- by considering the permanent disability at 39% at Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability. The Tribunal has however restricted the same to Rs.5,000/- on the ground that the appellant/claimant has produced xerox copies and the originals were not produced. 10. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation at Rs.58,500/- by considering the permanent disability at 39% at Rs.1,500/- per percentage of disability. I am therefore inclined to consider 42% permanent disability at Rs.2,000/- per percentage, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant and the age of the appellant at 49 years at the time of accident. The compensation shall be computed at Rs.2,000/- per percentage. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards disability is enhanced to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.2000x42). 11. The appellant claims to be a politician and an agriculturalist. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, it would be fair to conclude that the appellant/claimant would have been incapacitated from the undertaking any of the avocation, either as a politician or as an agriculturalist for six months. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income to six months instead of two months Rs.30,000/- (Rs.5000x6) merely because photo copy of the medical bills were produced is no ground for not awarding compensation on such bills. 12. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is therefore enhanced and is thus recomputed as follows:- Sl. No. Heads of Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or enhanced or reduced or granted or set aside 1. Permanent Disability Rs.58,500/- (disability at 39%) Rs.84,000/- (disability at 42%) Enhanced 2. Mental Agony, Pain & Sufferings Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Enhanced 3. Medical Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.22,414/- Enhanced 4. Transportation Charges Rs.4,000/- Rs.7,500/- Enhanced 5. Extra Nourishment Rs.4,000/- Rs.7,500/- Enhanced 6. Damages to clothes Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Confirmed 7. Loss of Income Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/- Enhanced Total Rs.93,500/- Rs.1,68,414/- Rounded off to Rs.1,68,500/- Enhanced by Rs.75,000/- 13. The 3rd respondent/insurance company is therefore directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.1,68,500/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim petition till the date of such deposit, less any amount already deposited by it, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 14. 14. On such deposit being made by the 3rd respondent/insurance company, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw his respective share in the same proportion as was ordered by the Tribunal, together with interest accrued thereon, less the amount already withdrawn if any, by filing suitable application before the Tribunal. 15. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands partly allowed with the above observations. No costs.