( 1 ) IN an injury case the claimant not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and claimed more compensation under various heads. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 5. 1. 1999 passed in M. V. C. No. 350 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-IV at Bijapur (for short 'the MACT' ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: the claimant oh 31. 1. 1996 sustained certain injuries in an accident involving motor vehicle (bus) owned by the respondent corporation. The fact that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation's bus is not in controversy. Therefore, there is no need for us to review the factual finding recorded by MACT on actionable negligence attributed to the driver of the bus.

( 3 ) THE claimant who was aged 38 years on the date of accident claims to be a businessman dealing in textiles and earning monthly income of Rs. 5,000. Appellant claimant claimed total compensation of rs. 11,25,000 on various heads.

( 4 ) THE claim of appellant was opposed by the Corporation by filing a statement of objections denying the age, income and other claims made in the claim petition. The MACT having regard to the pleadings of the parties and having framed necessary issues for decision-making, ultimately, awarded Rs. 35,000 for pain and suffering, rs. 20,000 towards medical and incidental expenses, Rs. 25,000 for loss of amenities of life, thus in total Rs. 80,000 is awarded with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Hence this appeal by the claimant contending that sum of Rs. 80,000 awarded by MACT is too meagre and inadequate.

( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. B. S. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Vijayakumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation.

( 6 ) MR. B. S. Patil would contend that the impugned award bristles with number of errors apparent on its face. Elaborating the contention, Mr. Patil would point out that though claimant was inpatient in the hospital for more than one month and was not in a position to attend to his normal work for more than four months, the MACT has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income. Mr. Patil would also point out that a sum of Rs. 35,000 awarded by the MACT towards pain and suffering at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per fracture is very much on lower side and it could not be regarded as a just and reasonable compensation within the contemplation of the Act. Mr. B. S. Patil would also point out that the mact is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards attendant charges, transportation charges, special nutrition and food. Mr. Patil would also draw our attention to the evidence of PW 1 and point out that claimant had to undertake journey with an attendant as many as seven times to Aurangabad to have medical treatment and had to spend considerable amount for transportation charges, but no compensation is awarded by the MACT.

( 7 ) MR. Patil would next contend that though as per the evidence of doctor, PW 2, the claimant has sustained permanent disability to an extent of 25 per cent in the left lower limb and his physical frame is considerably deformed and he could not answer even nature-call without the use of commode, etc. , quite curiously, the MACT has not awarded any compensation towards future loss of income. Mr. Patil would also point out that the evidence of PW 1 that after the accident he had engaged the services of two employees at the consolidated salary of Rs. 800 p. m. to attend to the same work which he used to attend before the accident, is completely ignored by the mact in decision-making. Mr. B. S. Patil would also point out that no compensation is awarded by the MACT towards loss of expectation of life.

( 8 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation,