JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging judgment and award dtd. 2/6/2014 passed in MVC No.79/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short), appellant has filed this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter MV Act). 2. Brief facts as stated are that on 30/4/2010, claimant-appellant, while travelling as pillion rider on Honda Activa bearing Reg.No.KA.19/R.5277, sustained grievous injuries, when it met with an accident with a Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA.19/MA.8487 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Alva's Health Centre, Moodabidri and thereafter, to City Hospital, Mangalore, where he took treatment as inpatient till 10/6/2010. Despite treatment, he did not recover fully and sustained physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition against owner and insurer of Maruthi Swift Car under Sec. 166 of MV Act. 3. Respondent No.2 - Insurer opposed claim petition on all counts. 4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident that occurred on 30/4/2010 at about 10.30 a.m. on Moodabidri - Vennor Road, Kallabettu Village, Mangalore Taluk was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg. No.KA-19-MA/8487 by its driver? 2. Whether respondent No.2 proves that the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-19-MA/8487 was not involved in the alleged accident? 3. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained injuries as a result of accident in question? 4. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom he is entitled 5. To what decree or order? 5. In support of claim petition, claimant examined as PW1 and one witness as P.W.2. Exs.P.1 to P.33 were marked. On the other hand, respondent No.2 did not adduce any evidence, but got marked Copy of policy as Ex.R1. 6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative; issue no.2 in negative and issue no.3 in affirmative and issue no.4 partly in affirmative by allowing the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,06,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum, against owner and insurer. 6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in affirmative; issue no.2 in negative and issue no.3 in affirmative and issue no.4 partly in affirmative by allowing the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,06,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum, against owner and insurer. The Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver, that the car was insured with 2nd respondent - Insurer and that driver was holding a valid driving licence as on date of accident. It determined age of appellant as 53 years, occupation as businessman and his monthly income at Rs.7,500.00. And based on evidence of P.W.2 - Dr.Sudhakar T, Tribunal assessed his functional disability at 13% and computed total compensation of Rs.4,05,700.00 (rounded off to Rs.4,06,000.00), holding Insurer liable to pay compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Challenging award, only claimant has filed appeal. 7. Sri.Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel appearing for appellant - claimant submitted that impugned award passed by Tribunal was not commensurate with facts and circumstances of case and evidence on record. Though claimant sustained malunited fractures of both tibia and fibula with osteomyelities of right tibia, Tribunal awarded meager compensation of Rs.40,000.00 towards 'pain and suffering'. Despite claimant taking treatment as inpatient for a total period of 63 days, award towards attendant charges and other incidental expenses was Rs.12,000.00 and Rs.15,000.00 respectively, which was on the lower side. It was submitted that fracture was malunited and as per evidence of P.W.2, there was disability to his right lower limb at 40%, however, Tribunal awarded meager sum of Rs.50,000.00 towards 'loss of amenities'. Learned counsel sought for enhancement of compensation. 8. On the other hand, Sri. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Insurer supported the award and opposed enhancement. It was submitted that claimant being a businessman, injuries sustained would not affect his earning capacity. On overall consideration, award of Rs.4,06,000.00 was just and proper and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record. 10. From above submissions, occurrence of accident, due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver and liability of respondent - insurer to pay compensation is not in dispute. Issuance of insurance policy and its coverage as on date of accident are also not in dispute. Insurer has not filed appeal against award. 10. From above submissions, occurrence of accident, due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver and liability of respondent - insurer to pay compensation is not in dispute. Issuance of insurance policy and its coverage as on date of accident are also not in dispute. Insurer has not filed appeal against award. Only claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement. Therefore, liability of insurer to pay compensation is also not in dispute. Thus, only point that arises for my consideration is: Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for? 11. In order to substantiate injuries, claimant produced Wound Certificate at Ex.P.8, Discharge Summary, Disability Certificate, X-ray and Out Patient Card as per Exs.P.9 to P.14 respectively, apart from medical bills, case sheet, X-ray and C.T. Scan as per Exs.P.20 to P.33 respectively. On perusal of Ex.P.8 - Wound Certificate and treatment records, it is seen that claimant sustained malunited fractures of tibia; weakness and restricted movements of right knee joint and loss of movements to an extent of 12%, power to extent of 12%, loss of stability 10% and osteomylitis tibia 8% of right knee. Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000.00 towards 'pain and suffering', which appears just and proper and no enhancement is called for. 12. However, from treatment records and case sheet, claimant has taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 63 days at different hospitals. Considering duration and nature of treatment taken by claimant, award of Rs.12,000.00 towards attendant charges and Rs.15,000.00 towards food, nourishment and traveling expenses etc., would be meager. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to award Rs.50,000.00 towards the same. 13. Claimant was examined by Medical Board of Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore, which assessed permanent disability of claimant at 40% in respect of right lower limb and opined that claimant has difficulty to walk, climb, squat, bend and stand for long time. There is malunion of fractures of both tibia and fibula. Though P.W.2 has been cross-examined, there is nothing elicited to dispute his assessment. As claimant would endure disability for reminder of life, award of Rs.15,000.00 towards loss of amenities would not be justified. It would be appropriate to award Rs.40,000.00 instead. Hence, re-assessed compensation would be as follows; 14. Accordingly, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Though P.W.2 has been cross-examined, there is nothing elicited to dispute his assessment. As claimant would endure disability for reminder of life, award of Rs.15,000.00 towards loss of amenities would not be justified. It would be appropriate to award Rs.40,000.00 instead. Hence, re-assessed compensation would be as follows; 14. Accordingly, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Claimant is entitled to total reassessed compensation of Rs.4,43,700.00 with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.4,06,000.00 awarded by Tribunal. 15. Hence, the following ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part with costs. ii) The total compensation awarded by Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,43,700.00 (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred only) as against 1. Pain and Agony Rs.40,000.00 2. Medical Expenses Rs.1,65,000.00 3. Food, Nourishment, Attendant Charges and Incidental Charges Rs.40,000.00 4. Loss of income during laid off period Rs.30,000.00 5. Loss of future earnings Rs.1,28,700.00 6. Loss of amenities Rs.40,000.00 Total Rs.4,43,700.00 Rs.4,06,000.00 awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till its realization. iii) Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit amount determined as aforesaid before Tribunal within six weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of judgment and order. iv) Since appellant is a businessman and enhanced compensation is not substantial, entire award amount is ordered to be released in favour of appellant. v) Registry shall draw decree and transfer original records to jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.