JUDGMENT : These two appeals are arising out of judgment and award dated 17.01.2018 in MVC.No.1039/2016. 2. While MFA.No.200789/2018 is filed by the Insurance company seeking reduction of compensation, MFA.No.201966/2018 is filed by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation. 3. Since respondent No.2 -Insurance company has raised objections regarding admissibility of medical bill for a sum of Rs.1,71,300/-which is marked as Bill No.1 of Ex.P13, before this Court, petitioner has filed I.A.No.1/2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w/s 151 C.P.C, with a prayer to permit petitioner to produce the additional documents. Along with the said application, petitioner has produced the original bill claiming that through the same she has paid a sum of Rs.1,71,300/-to the United Hospital, where she took treatment. 4. Respondent No.2 – Insurance company has not filed objections to this application. 5. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal. 6. FACTS: The brief facts leading to filing of claim petition are that on 08.05.2016 at about 6.30 p.m., petitioner was proceeding to Wadi town to attend her relative’s marriage on motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-32/EG-4101 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), as a pillion rider. One Kailash, S/o Shamrao was riding the motor cycle. When they were near the bus stand at Kalakatta village, on the hump the rider of the motor cycle rode it in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner as a result of which both petitioner and rider fell down. In the said accident, petitioner sustained head injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Wadi and after first aid, she was taken to United Hospital, Kalaburagi. She took treatment as in-patient from 08.05.2016 to 23.05.2016. On account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, inspite of prolonged treatment, she is not completely cured. She is suffering from permanent partial disability. She has spent Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment and requires additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- further treatment. As the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and hence the petition. 7. Before the Tribunal inspite of due service of notice respondent No.1 remained absent and as such he was placed Ex-parte. 8. Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement denying that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent act of the rider of the offending vehicle. 7. Before the Tribunal inspite of due service of notice respondent No.1 remained absent and as such he was placed Ex-parte. 8. Respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement denying that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent act of the rider of the offending vehicle. At the time of alleged accident, the rider of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. Respondent No.2 has also denied the age, income, occupation of the petitioner, the nature of injury sustained, period of treatment, expenses incurred and that injuries have resulted in permanent partial disability. The compensation claimed is exorbitant, baseless and excessive. 9. Based on these pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the necessary issues. 10. In support of her case, petitioner got herself examined himself as PW-1 and two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3. She has got marked Exs.P1 to 15. 11. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW-1 is examined and Ex.R1 is marked. 12. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation in a sum of Rs.5,98,000/-with interest at 6% p.a as detailed below: Heads Amount In Rs. Towards Pain and Suffering 1,00,000 Towards Medical expenses 2,26,700 Towards Diet & Attendant charges 20,000 Towards Loss of Future Earnings 1,36,080 Towards Future Medical Treatment 1,00,000 Loss of income during treatment period 15,000 Total Rounded Off 5,97,780 5,98,000 13. Challenging impugned judgment and award, respondent No.2 has filed appeal contenting that the impugned judgment and award is against the law, evidence and circumstances of the case and as such liable to be set aside. The petitioner has produced photocopies of medical bills and based on it the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation in a sum of Rs.2,26,700/-under the head medical expenses. The disability assessed at 27% of the whole body by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The compensation granted under various heads is highly exorbitant and baseless. At the time of accident, the petitioner was not wearing helmet and as such she has contributed towards the accident. Therefore, her part of the negligence is to be calculated and proportionate compensation is required to be reduced. The Tribunal has also not appreciated the evidence of RW-1 and prays to allow the appeal. 14. At the time of accident, the petitioner was not wearing helmet and as such she has contributed towards the accident. Therefore, her part of the negligence is to be calculated and proportionate compensation is required to be reduced. The Tribunal has also not appreciated the evidence of RW-1 and prays to allow the appeal. 14. On the other hand not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioner has filed the appeal contending that the Tribunal should have taken her income as Rs.15,000/-p.m and disability at 81% and consequently the compensation granted under the head loss of future income is on the lower side. The compensation granted under the remaining heads is also on the lower side. The interest is also required to be enhanced and prays to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation. 15. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 16. The points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the respondent No.2 -Insurance company has made out any justifiable grounds to reduce the compensation? (ii) Whether the petitioner has made out any justifiable grounds to enhance the compensation? (iii) What order? 17. My findings to the above points are: Point No (i): In the Affirmative Point No (ii): In the Negative Point No (iii): As per the final order for the following: REASONS 18. Point Nos. (i) and (ii): Since these points involve common discussion, they are considered together. 19. At the outset, it is relevant to note that in the petition itself, the petitioner has given her age as 62 years. However, in all the medical records, her age is noted as 65 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered her age as 65 years. Having regard to the fact that as on the date of accident, petitioner was aged 65 years i.e., she was well passed the age of earning, keeping the said fact in mind the compensation payable to her is required to be determined. 20. Though the petitioner has pleaded that she was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. that too by coolie, she has not stated what actually she was doing which would fetch her Rs.15,000/-p.m. that too at the age of 65 years. In fact during her cross-examination petitioner has admitted that for male coolies, Rs.120/-is paid per day, whereas for female coolies, Rs.100/-is paid. 20. Though the petitioner has pleaded that she was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. that too by coolie, she has not stated what actually she was doing which would fetch her Rs.15,000/-p.m. that too at the age of 65 years. In fact during her cross-examination petitioner has admitted that for male coolies, Rs.120/-is paid per day, whereas for female coolies, Rs.100/-is paid. In other words she has admitted that at the most she could earn Rs.3,000/-p.m. Such being the case in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary the Tribunal has erred by taking her monthly income as Rs.6,000/-p.m. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the age of the petitioner and her admission, it would be appropriate to take the income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/-p.m. which could be the quantification of her services to her family rather than her monthly income. Keeping in mind the notional income of petitioner at Rs.3,000/-p.m, let me examine whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or whether it requires further enhancement or reduction under the following heads. 21. Pain and sufferings: Ex.P7 is the discharge summary dated 23.05.2016. According to this document, the petitioner has suffered the following injuries and the procedure adopted: Diagnosis: 1. Right TP EDH with left temporal contusion and left TP thin SDH. 2. Fracture proximal end right humerus. Procedure: Right FTP Creniotomy and EDH evacution done on 09.05.2016. Course in the Hospital: Patient presented with alleged history of RTA near Halkata gate at around 6.30 p.m., c/o pain over the right elbow wrist joint, history of vomiting, LOC. Right ear bleed active. Relevant investigation were done. Intensivisit, Orthopeadic surgeon, opinion was taken. Patient underwent above procedure on 09.05.2016. Post operative was uneventful, for fracture proximal end right humerus patient advised for surgery but patient attenders refused for surgery. Patient is being discharged with advice. 21.1 However, on 05.11.2017 when X-ray of the skull was taken as per Ex.P8 the following is the result: i) Evidence of craniotomy with cranioplasty noted in Rt. fronto temporo parietal area. ii) The other skull bones appear normal. iii) The sella tursica and suprasellar areas are normal. iv) The cranial fossae dorsum sella and clivus are normal. 21.2 As per Ex.P9, the following is the X-ray report: i) Evidence of comminuted fracture of upper end of Rt. Humerus. ii) The fracture fragments are slightly displaced. fronto temporo parietal area. ii) The other skull bones appear normal. iii) The sella tursica and suprasellar areas are normal. iv) The cranial fossae dorsum sella and clivus are normal. 21.2 As per Ex.P9, the following is the X-ray report: i) Evidence of comminuted fracture of upper end of Rt. Humerus. ii) The fracture fragments are slightly displaced. iii) The Rt. Shoulder joint appears normal. iv) Evidence of fracture of lower end of Rt. humerus with dislocation of Rt. elbow joint noted. 21.3 It is pertinent to note that with regard to fracture of proximal end right humerus though petitioner was advised surgery, she did not chose to undergo surgery. In this background, perusal of Ex.P-7 to 9 makes it evident that on 05.11.2017 when evaluation of her injuries were made for the purpose of ascertaining disability, the X-ray report state that her condition is normal. In view of the same, the grant of compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-under the head pain and suffering appears to be on the higher side. Looking to the age of the petitioner and the nature of injury sustained, as well as the extent to which she has responded to the treatment, it would be appropriate and sufficient to grant compensation in a sum of Rs.70,000/-under the head pain and sufferings as against Rs.1,00,000/-granted by the Tribunal. 22. Medical Expenses: The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that some of the medical bills are colour Xerox copies and the petitioner is not having any explanation for the same i.e., not producing the original bills. The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.2,26,700/-towards the medical expenses. The Tribunal has based this calculation on medical bills produced by the petitioner. However, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has produced some of the medical bills more than once to increase the quantum. The total number of bills produced are 154. Out of these the first document consist of two sheets and consequently, having two voucher numbers. If the same is taken as one bill, then the total number of bills comes to 153. The following is the details of the medical bills. Sl. The total number of bills produced are 154. Out of these the first document consist of two sheets and consequently, having two voucher numbers. If the same is taken as one bill, then the total number of bills comes to 153. The following is the details of the medical bills. Sl. No. Sl.No. as per marking Date Invoice No./Bill No. Amount Whether Original or Photocopy Amount to be taken into consideration 1 1 23.05.2016 6528 & 6529 171300 Photocopy 0 2 2 23.05.2016 004012 621 Original 621 27 23.05.2016 004012 621 Photocopy 3 3 19.05.2016 003761 210 Photocopy 210 152 19.05.2016 003761 210 Original 4 4 18.05.2016 003695 279 Original 279 30 18.05.2016 003695 279 Photocopy 5 5 19.05.2016 003742 225 Original 225 86 19.05.2016 003742 225 Photocopy 6 6 13.05.2016 003280 303 Photocopy 303 89 13.05.2016 003280 303 Original 7 7 18.05.2016 003676 19 Photocopy 19 53 18.05.2016 003676 19 Original 8 8 12.05.2016 003204 50 Photocopy 50 45 12.05.2016 003204 50 Original 9 9 11.05.2016 003087 5008 Photocopy 5008 50 11.05.2016 003087 5008 Original 10 10 12.05.2016 003191 4622 Photocopy 4622 48 12.05.2016 003191 4622 Original 11 11 12.05.2016 003210 55 Photocopy 55 51 12.05.2016 003210 55 Original 12 12 09.05.2016 141 5200 Original 5200 72 09.05.2016 141 5200 Photocopy 13 13 16.06.2016 3398 100 Original 100 14 14 03.06.2016 004965 388 Original 388 66 03.06.2016 004965 388 Photocopy 15 15 08.07.2016 MM08207 753 Original 753 16 16 17.05.2016 4530 550 Original 550 129 17.05.2016 4530 550 Photocopy 17 17 11.05.2016 003142 76 Photocopy 76 40 11.05.2016 003142 76 Original 18 18 19.05.2016 003764 248 Original 248 19 19.05.2016 003764 248 Photocopy 93 19.05.2016 003764 248 Photocopy 19 20 03.06.2016 004962 79 Photocopy 79 99 03.06.2016 004962 79 Original 20 21 19.05.2016 003730 56 Photocopy 56 28 19.05.2016 003730 56 Original 21 22 20.05.2016 003803 151 Photocopy 151 23 20.05.2016 003803 151 Original 22 24 21.05.2016 003860 93 Original 93 37 21.05.2016 003860 93 Photocopy 23 25 13.05.2016 003257 4916 Original 4916 104 13.05.2016 003257 4916 Photocopy 24 26 10.05.2016 003048 5121 Original 5121 35 10.05.2016 003048 5121 Photocopy 25 29 21.05.2016 003841 1008 Photocopy 1008 102 21.05.2016 003841 1008 Original 26 31 15.05.2016 003436 210 Photocopy 210 56 15.05.2016 003436 210 Original 27 32 17.05.2016 003647 10 Photocopy 10 113 17.05.2016 003647 10 Original 28 33 08.06.2016 005380 61 Photocopy 61 47 08.06.2016 005380 61 Original 29 34 03.06.2016 004963 1224 Photocopy 1224 76 03.06.2016 004963 1224 Original 30 36 16.05.2016 003532 163 Photocopy 163 114 16.05.2016 003532 163 Original 31 38 21.05.2016 003855 85 Photocopy 85 109 21.05.2016 003855 85 Original 32 39 21.05.2016 003842 120 Photocopy 120 94 21.05.2016 003842 120 Original 33 41 12.05.2016 003169 210 Original 210 68 12.05.2016 003169 210 Photocopy 34 42 12.05.2016 003193 461 Original 461 69 12.05.2016 003193 461 Photocopy 35 43 21.05.2016 003850 961 Photocopy 961 111 21.05.2016 003850 961 Original 36 44 11.05.2016 003104 217 Original 217 147 11.05.2016 003104 217 Photocopy 37 46 12.05.2016 003206 135 Original 135 84 12.05.2016 003206 135 Photocopy 38 49 12.05.2016 003163 33 Original 33 144 12.05.2016 003163 33 Photocopy 39 52 12.05.2016 003213 303 Original 303 90 12.05.2016 003213 303 Photocopy 40 54 15.05.2016 003424 4905 Original 4905 145 15.05.2016 003424 4905 Photocopy 41 55 09.05.2016 002930 15661 Original 15661 67 09.05.2016 002930 15661 Photocopy 42 57 14.05.2016 003368 90 Original 90 100 14.05.2016 003368 90 Photocopy 43 58 16.05.2016 003516 4852 Original 4852 95 16.05.2016 003516 4852 Photocopy 44 59 09.05.2016 002920 1497 Original 1497 65 09.05.2016 002920 1497 Photocopy 45 60 09.05.2016 002961 169 Original 169 75 09.05.2016 002961 169 Photocopy 46 61 13.05.2016 003234 210 Original 210 98 13.05.2016 003234 210 Photocopy 47 62 17.05.2016 484 400 Original 400 142 17.05.2016 484 400 Photocopy 48 63 03.06.2016 5054 350 Original 350 134 03.06.2016 5054 350 Photocopy 49 64 09.05.2016 002924 5346 Original 5346 78 09.05.2016 002924 5346 Photocopy 50 70 14.05.2016 003317 33 Original 33 103 14.05.2016 003317 33 Photocopy 51 71 14.05.2016 003329 5109 Original 5109 146 14.05.2016 003329 5109 Photocopy 52 73 10.05.2016 003007 135 Photocopy 135 117 10.05.2016 003007 135 Original 53 74 10.05.2016 003045 930 Photocopy 930 115 10.05.2016 003045 930 Original 54 77 09.05.2016 002919 2580 Photocopy 2580 83 09.05.2016 002919 2580 Original 55 79 09.05.2016 4402 700 Photocopy 700 151 09.05.2016 4402 700 Original 56 80 11.05.2016 4429 1150 Photocopy 1150 122 11.05.2016 4429 1150 Original 57 81 09.05.2016 002946 5370 Original 5370 85 09.05.2016 002946 5370 Photocopy 58 82 20.05.2016 003820 31 Original 31 92 20.05.2016 003820 31 Photocopy 59 87 17.05.2016 003593 9 Original 9 106 17.05.2016 003593 9 Photocopy 60 88 17.05.2016 003581 19 Original 19 107 17.05.2016 003581 19 Photocopy 61 91 16.05.2016 003369 19 Photocopy 19 119 16.05.2016 003369 19 Original 62 96 16.05.2016 003526 210 Photocopy 210 116 16.05.2016 003526 210 Original 63 97 18.05.2016 003708 135 Photocopy 135 153 18.05.2016 003708 135 Original 64 101 16.05.2016 003543 303 Photocopy 303 118 16.05.2016 003543 303 Original 65 105 17.05.2016 003607 1854 Photocopy 1854 108 17.05.2016 003607 1854 Original 66 110 08.07.2016 007476 1343 Original 1343 67 112 13.06.2016 005830 76 Original 76 120 17.05.2016 4532 350 Original 68 135 17.05.2016 4532 350 Photocopy 350 121 08.05.2016 4391 2150 Original 69 138 08.05.2016 4391 2150 Photocopy 2150 123 12.05.2016 4438 500 Original 70 132 12.05.2016 4438 500 Photocopy 500 124 09.05.2016 467 400 Original 71 143 09.05.2016 467 400 Photocopy 400 125 23.05.2016 492 400 Original 72 128 23.05.2016 492 400 Photocopy 400 126 17.05.2016 494 2000 Photocopy 73 137 17.05.2016 494 2000 Original 2000 127 08.05.2016 456 2800 Photocopy 74 136 08.05.2016 456 2800 Original 2800 75 130 16.06.2016 3399 100 Original 100 76 131 16.06.2016 3400 100 Original 100 77 133 08.07.2016 5630 350 Original 350 78 139 21.05.2016 4594 450 Original 450 148 21.05.2016 4594 450 Photocopy 79 140 09.05.2016 459 2000 Photocopy 2000 141 09.05.2016 459 2000 Original 80 149 21.05.2016 4598 550 Photocopy 550 150 21.05.2016 4598 550 Original Total 368646 99960 22.1 The repeated medical bills in the form of colour Xerox/photocopies makes it evident that in order to claim higher compensation, the petitioner has produced the same medical bills more than once in the form of original, colour Xerox and photocopies. From the analysis of the medical bills, it is quite evident that even though petitioner has produced 154 medical bills, out of them only 79 bills are original. The rest of them are photocopies of the originals produced more than once to claim higher compensation. 22.2 Out of these, the first bill for Rs.1,71,300/-is a photocopy. For reasons best known to her petitioner has not chosen to produce original of it and rightly the Tribunal has not taken it into consideration for granting compensation under the head medical expenses. However, petitioner has chosen to produce original of the first bill for a sum of Rs.1,71,300/-. This bill indicates that at the first instance a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-has been paid by way of advance. Consequently, Rs.31,300/-was due. Out of this, the hospital has given discount in a sum of Rs.20,000/-and the petitioner was required to pay balance of Rs.11,300/-. However, this document does not indicate that petitioner has paid the said balance amount of Rs.11,300/-. Consequently, the amount paid under this bill is only Rs.1,40,000/-. 22.3 As mandated by Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C, a party shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary in the Appellate Court unless and until it establish that the Court from whose decree appeal is preferred has refused to admit the said evidence or that notwithstanding the exercise of due deligence it could not produce the same when the decree appealed against was passed or Appellate Court requires such document to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. 22.4 However, in the affidavit appended to the application, petitioner has not given any reasons as to why she could not produce the original document at the earliest available opportunity. Except reiterating the facts regarding she having met with the accident and suffered injuries and that if the application is not allowed she would be put to great hardship, she is not having any explanation for not producing this document before the Tribunal. Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner has not made out any justifiable grounds to allow this application and accordingly, the same is liable to be rejected. 22.5 So far as remaining bills are concerned, the Tribunal has failed to examine the remaining medical bills minutely to ascertain that petitioner has produced photocopies of the some of the originals to claim higher compensation. 22.5 So far as remaining bills are concerned, the Tribunal has failed to examine the remaining medical bills minutely to ascertain that petitioner has produced photocopies of the some of the originals to claim higher compensation. In fact very cleverly petitioner has not chosen to produce the medical bills in a chronological manner which would have put the Tribunal on guard by ascertaining the repetition of invoice numbers, dates and amount. The petitioner has chosen to produce these medical bills randomly and having regard to the huge number of medical bills, they have missed the attention of the Tribunal. 22.6 Moreover, before the Tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 is also not deligent enough to cross-examine PW-1 on the aspect of same medical bills being produced more than once in the form of originals as well as photocopies to claim higher compensation. As the responsible Officers of the Court both learned counsel for petitioners and respondents owe a duty not only to their clients but also to the Court. They shall not be, more particularly the learned counsel representing the petitioner, a party to the fraud played on the Tribunal for the purpose of getting higher compensation. 22.7 The manner in which these medical bills are produced goes to show that the petitioner and her counsel have willfully and intentionally mislead the Tribunal to grant higher compensation. As noted earlier, in all 154 medical bills are produced. When large number of bills are produced, it is bound to escape the attention of the Tribunal/Court. However, the Tribunal is duty bound to examine each and every bill to see whether they are genuine or any bills are repeated. As Officers of the Court, the learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as respondents are required to assist the Court. Especially the learned counsel for the petitioner should not mislead the Court by producing such copies of the bills. The Tribunal should insist that the bills should be produced in chronological order, so that if any bill is repeated which is of the same date and voucher number, then the Tribunal/Court will be in a position to examine it. Especially the learned counsel for the petitioner should not mislead the Court by producing such copies of the bills. The Tribunal should insist that the bills should be produced in chronological order, so that if any bill is repeated which is of the same date and voucher number, then the Tribunal/Court will be in a position to examine it. The conduct of the learned counsel for petitioner in producing the same bills time and again in different forms i.e., once the original and other time Xerox copy and some other time colour Xerox copy, in order to get higher compensation is deprecated. Thus, from the scrutiny of the medical bills, it is evident that petitioner is entitled for compensation only in a sum of Rs.99,960/-as against Rs.3,68,646/-claimed by the petitioner and Rs.2,26,700/-granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation granted under the head medical expenses is restricted to Rs.99,960/-. 23. Diet and attendant charges: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/-under this head. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has suffered multiple fractures and it would be reasonable to expect that she was under treatment for a period of around three months and therefore, compensation granted under this head is reasonable and it requires no interference. 24. Compensation during treatment period/Loss of income during laid up period: At the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. the Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.16,000/-. As already noted and as admitted by the petitioner, a female coolie was paid Rs.3,000/-p.m i.e. Rs.100/-per day and therefore the monthly income of the petitioner is required to be taken at Rs.3,000/-. At this rate, for a period of three months petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.9,000/-p.m. under the head loss of income during laid up period and therefore the same is restricted to Rs.9,000/-p.m. 25. Loss of future earnings: The Tribunal has granted compensation in sum of Rs.1,36,080/-under this head. It has relied upon the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 to determine the disability suffered by the petitioner. Loss of future earnings: The Tribunal has granted compensation in sum of Rs.1,36,080/-under this head. It has relied upon the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 to determine the disability suffered by the petitioner. During the course of his evidence, PW-2 has deposed that on account of brain injury, the petitioner complains that there is severe giddiness, reeling sensation and fallen number of times and sustained minor injuries, neck tenderness and neck movements are painful, unable to carry weight on head, unable to balance due to cerebella contusion and SDH etc, and psychosomatic disturbances like intolerance to hot weather conditions, irritability memory abrasions, lethargy etc; is impairing the routine physical working and accounts for disability of 35%. Partial loss of hearing in Rear is due to damage of auditory nerve accounts for eranial nerve disability of 10%. He has calculated the disability at 45% of the whole body. 25.1 It is pertinent to note that during the course of her evidence, petitioner has not at all deposed that she is suffering from all or any of these problems on account of the injuries suffered by her. It appears after her evidence, the petitioner has approached the doctor and secured such an opinion to get higher compensation. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 that petitioner has suffered any disability is to be rejected. 25.2 On the other hand PW-3 Dr. Raju Kulkarni has assessed the disability so far as the injuries pertaining Orthopedic are concerned. Having regard to the un-united fracture of upper end of humerous and permanent physical impairment in relation to the upper limb, he has calculated the disability at 40%. He is not the doctor who has treated her. Anyhow taking into consideration the fact that the disability of upper limb is calculated at 40%, the whole body disability would come around 15%. Therefore, the loss of future income is required to be calculated by taking whole body disability at 15%. 25.3 As already discussed in the absence of evidence to the prove that the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. and as evident from the admission given by her the value of her services is to be considered at Rs.3,000/-p.m. As per the decision of the Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd case, the loss of future prospects is required to be added. 25.3 As already discussed in the absence of evidence to the prove that the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. and as evident from the admission given by her the value of her services is to be considered at Rs.3,000/-p.m. As per the decision of the Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd case, the loss of future prospects is required to be added. Since the petitioner was aged 65 years at the time of accident and she was stated to be doing coolie, 10% of her monthly income is required to be added to calculate the future loss of income. 10% of Rs.3,000/-comes to Rs.300/-. Therefore, the total notional income required to be taken is Rs.3,300/-. Since the petitioner is aged 65 years the appropriate multiplier is 7 and the disability at 15%. With these components, the loss of future earnings is Rs.3,300 x 12 x 7 x 15% = Rs.41,580/-as against Rs.1,36,080/-granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation granted under this head is restricted to Rs.41,580/-. 26. Future medical expenses: The Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-under this head. However, there is no evidence as to what exactly is further treatment petitioner is required. In fact at the time she was undergoing treatment, she has refused to undergo surgery with regard to the fracture of upper limb. Consequently, no implants are inserted. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-and there is no basis for arriving at such figure. Anyhow having regard to the fact petitioner is aged 65 years at the time of accident, it would be reasonable to grant compensation in a sum of Rs.15,000/-under this head and accordingly, compensation for future medical expenses is restricted to Rs.15,000/-as against Rs.1,00,000/-granted by the Tribunal. 27. Loss of amenities: The Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head loss of amenities. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment, it would be appropriate and reasonable to grant compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/-under the head loss of amenities of life. 28. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,80,540/-as against Rs.5,98,000/-granted by the Tribunal, as detailed below: Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs. Amount granted by this Court In Rs. 28. Thus, in all petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.2,80,540/-as against Rs.5,98,000/-granted by the Tribunal, as detailed below: Heads Amount granted by the Tribunal In Rs. Amount granted by this Court In Rs. Towards Pain and Suffering 1,00,000 70,000 Towards Medical expenses 2,26,700 99,960 Towards Diet & Attendant charges 20,000 20,000 Towards Loss of Future Earnings 1,36,080 41,580 Towards Future Medical Treatment 1,00,000 15,000 Loss of income during treatment period 15,000 9,000 Loss of amenities - 25,000 Total Rounded Off 5,97,780 5,98,000 2,80,540 29. Of course the petitioner is entitled for interest at 6% as granted by the Tribunal. 30. In the result the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 Insurance company requires to be allowed in part. It is pertinent to note that though in this appeal compensation under the head loss of amenities is granted (which was not granted by the Tribunal), having regard to the fact that the compensation granted under other heads is reduced, in the result appeal filed by the petitioner fails and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order ORDER (i) MFA.No.201966/2018 is filed by the petitioner is dismissed. (ii) I.A.No.1/2021 filed by petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w/s 151 C.P.C is also rejected. (iii) MFA.No.200789/2018 is filed by the Insurance company is allowed in part (iv) Petitioner is entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,80,540/-as against Rs.5,98,000/-granted by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. (v) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation together with interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.2,65,540/-(i.e., petitioner is not entitled for interest on Rs.15,000/-under the head future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realization (minus the compensation already paid/deposited) within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. (vi) If the amount in deposit made by respondent No.2 is in excess of its liability, it is entitled to withdraw the same. (vii) If the amount paid by respondent No.2 is in excess of entitlement of the petitioner, respondent No.2 is entitled to recover the balance from the petitioner. (viii) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record along with copy of this order to the Tribunal.