JUDGMENT : Ravi V Hosmani, J. Challenging judgment and award dated 13.08.2019 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVC no.440/2018, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted, appeal was by claimant for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted, at 11:30 A.M., on 28.11.2017, when claimant was unloading goods, driver of Lorry bearing registration no. KA-32-A-3468 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant, causing accident. In accident, claimant sustained several injuries. Despite treatment, he did not recover fully leading to loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against owner and insurer of Lorry. 3. Respondent no.1-owner of Lorry remained ex parte. Respondent no.2-Insurer opposed claim petition on all grounds and denied averments made in claim petition in toto. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.Raju Kulkarni, as PWs.1 and 2. Exhibits P.1 to P.16 were got marked. Insurer did not lead oral evidence, but got marked certified copy of Insurance policy with consent as Ex.R1. 5. On consideration, Tribunal held accident was due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle by its driver and claimant had sustained permanent physical disability leading to loss of earning capacity and entitled for compensation from Insurer as follows: 1 PAIN AND SUFFERINGS Rs.65,000=00 2 ATTENDANT CHARGES, FOOD AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES Rs.16,000=00 3 LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME Rs.1,74,700=00 4 MEDICAL EXPENDITURE Rs.1,21,100=00 5 LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT Rs.24,000=00 6 LOSS OF AMENITIES AND NUTRITION FOOD Rs.25,000=00 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.4,16,800=00 Dissatisfied with award, claimant is in appeal. 6. It was submitted, claimant sustained crush injury to left foot with degloving of skin and fracture of left fibula. Hence, assessment of functional disability was on lower side. Award of Rs.65,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’; Rs.16,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges for in-patient treatment for 32 days; Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities was also on lower side; and even assessment of monthly income of claimant was improper. It was submitted, Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses and sought for enhancement. 7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for Insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses and sought for enhancement. 7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for Insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, taking note of facts and circumstances of case into consideration, Tribunal had assessed compensation, leaving no scope for enhancement. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and certified copies of deposition and Exhibits made available for perusal by learned counsel for appellant. 9. From above and since it is claimant’s appeal for enhancement, point that would arise for consideration is : “Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?” 10. Insofar as monthly income, claimant stated, he was aged 42 years of age and working as Coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, he failed to substantiate same. In absence of specific proof of income, Tribunal assessed it at Rs.8,000/- per month notionally. But notional income for year 2017 is Rs.10,250/- as adopted by KSLSA for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Therefore, same has to be considered as monthly income. As per Ex.P6-wound certificate, Ex.P9-discharge summary and Ex.P10-disability certificate, claimant sustained crush injury to left foot with degloving of skin and fracture of left fibula. Referring to malunion of fracture of left fibula, PW.2 assessed permanent disability of 40%. While assessing compensation, Tribunal considered functional disability at 13%. Though enhancement of loss of earning capacity is sought, it is seen that PW.2 did not examine extent of restriction of movement of limb and its effect on loss of earning capacity. However, discomfort or inability to squat is stated. It is stated that dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of left ankle are not possible. Even supination and pronation are not possible. As stated, taking note of same and fact that claimant was Coolie would require to move up and down on planks for loading/unloading of goods into Lorry, it would be appropriate to assess functional disability at 15%. Thus, computation of future loss of income would be Rs.2,58,300/-. 11. As noted by Tribunal, claimant sustained crush injury to left foot with degloving of skin and fracture of left fibula. Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ which appears to be just and appropriate. Claimant has taken in-patient treatment for 32 days, award of Rs.16,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges is inadequate and same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. As noted by Tribunal, claimant sustained crush injury to left foot with degloving of skin and fracture of left fibula. Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ which appears to be just and appropriate. Claimant has taken in-patient treatment for 32 days, award of Rs.16,000/- towards attendant, food and conveyance charges is inadequate and same is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,12,100/- towards medical expensed against bills produced. Since there is complete reimbursement, there is no scope for enhancement. 12. Tribunal awarded Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during treatment. Normally, fractures take three months to heal. Therefore, claimant would be entitled for Rs.30,750/- towards loss of income during laid-up period. Claimant is aged 42 years and sustained crush injury to left foot with degloving of skin and fracture of left fibula. He has lost amenities of movement of ankle. Therefore, award of Rs.25,000/- towards amenities would not be justified and same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 13. In his deposition, PW.2 has stated about requirement of plastic surgery and opined its cost as Rs.1,50,000/-. However, PW.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon. Taking note of fact that plastic surgery is expensive, it would be appropriate to award Rs.60,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, compensation is recomputed as under: 1 PAIN AND SUFFERINGS Rs.65,000=00 2 ATTENDANT CHARGES, FOOD AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES Rs.35,000=00 3 LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME Rs.2,58,300=00 4 MEDICAL EXPENDITURE Rs.1,21,100=00 5 LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT Rs.30,750=00 6 LOSS OF AMENITIES AND NUTRITION FOOD Rs.40,000=00 7 FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSE Rs.60,000=00 TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.6,10,050=00 14. Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part; ii. Judgment and award dated 13.08.2019 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC no.440/2018 is modified. iii. Claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,10,050/- as against Rs.4,16,800/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization. iv. Insurer is held liable to pay same and is directed to deposit same with interest before Tribunal within four weeks. v. Conditions imposed by Tribunal about deposit and release would apply to enhanced compensation proportionately.