( 1 ) PERSONAL injury may be inflicted by means of a large number of very different torts. The tort of negligence qualifies to take easily the larger share. An unfortunate victim of an accident is in appeal. His right leg has been amputated.

( 2 ) IN an accident which occurred on 9. 4. 1993 at about 11. 45 p. m. , the claimant appellant was going to his house by the side of the road. At that point of time, a tractor being driven with high speed came from Manajari side and hit the petitioner. Due to the said impact, claimant-appellant fell down and sustained severe injuries to his both legs. Immediately after the accident, the claimant-appellant was shifted to the hospital. Thereafter, for a better and further treatment he was taken to Wanless hospital at Miraj. According to claimant appellant, even as on the date of the filing of the claim petition, he was undergoing treatment. Prior to the accident, claimant was serving as a supplier in Nand Govind hotel at Ankali. Due to the injuries suffered and the impact thereof, the right leg of the claimant-appellant has been amputated and he has become permanently disabled causing him severe suffering, both mentally and physically.

( 3 ) THE said claim petition was contested by the owner as well as the insurer by filing statement of objections. They have denied the entire claim and the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant and sought for dismissal of the claim.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW 1 and the doctor as PW 2. In support of his claim regarding compensation, he has marked as many as 100 documents at Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-100. The learned member of the Tribunal, on consideration of the materials on record, was of the opinion that the accident had occurred solely on account of the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. He has relied on Exh P-1 complaint, Exh. P-2 F. I. R. and Exh. P-4 spot panchnama. Insofar as the actionable negligence is concerned, there is no challenge either by the owner of the vehicle or the insurer. Hence, it has attained finality.

( 5 ) THE only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is quantum. Claims Tribunal while awarding a sum of rs. 1,10,000 pertaining to injuries suffered, was of the opinion that the injuries suffered are grievous in nature. He has relied on Exhs. P-9, P-11 and P-12 to come to the conclusion that claimant-appellant was treated as an inpatient from 10. 4. 1993 to 17. 5. 1993. The Tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 72,000 towards loss of future earnings and also Rs. 7,500, Rs. 10,000, Rs. 5,000, rs. 1,500, Rs. 616 and Rs. 13,703. 97 under various heads and has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,10,319. 97 which is rounded off to Rs. 1,10,000 (rupees one lakh ten thousand ).

( 6 ) THE claimant-appellant dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal is seeking enhancement. Mr. Yogesh appearing for Mr. Prasad Hegde, the learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 1,10,000 for the injuries suffered by the claimant. He would submit that right leg of the claimant has been amputated, which has resulted in permanent disability and he will not be in a position to pursue any rigorous and vigorous avocation. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not awarded adequate damages towards loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and for hospitalisation. In these circumstances, he would commend that the enhancement is permissible under all the heads.

( 7 ) MR. K. N. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the insurer would support the judgment and award passed by the tribunal.

( 8 ) I have been taken through the impugned judgment. It is noticed that the compensation claimed in the claim petition is only Rs. 1,50,000. The question would be, when the compensation claimed is confined to a particular amount in the claim petition whether the Tribunal or this court can travel beyond the claim made i