The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation for personal injury under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, considering factors such as permanent disability, future earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, and attendant charges.

JUDGMENT

N.S.Sanjay Gowda, J. - The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.1,05,307/-, is in appeal.

2. Both the factum of the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company is not in dispute.

3. In the accident which occurred on 09.10.2006, as per the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the clamant suffered the following injuries:

"1. Equine Valgus deformity of the right leg.

2. Tenderness over right ankle joint.

3. Scar over right hip.

4. Restriction of joint movement right ankle planter-Dorsiflexion"

4. According to the opinion of the Doctor, due to the accident, the claimant had suffered permanent physical disability of 30% of the right lower limb and 40% disability to the whole body.

5. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- and has awarded the following compensation:

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in not awarding any sum towards loss of future earning capacity and the Tribunal has also committed an error in awarding meager sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.

7. Learned counsel for Insurance Company, on the other hand, contends that having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper.

8. I have perused the material on record and also scanned through original records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged about 48 years and was stated to be a cooking contractor. Though he claims that he was earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, no credible evidence was adduced to establish the said income. Consequently, the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income to Rs.4,000/-, which in my view, cannot be said to be improper.

10. The Tribunal has however refused to award any compensation towards loss of future earning. The Doctor who has examined has opined that the claimant was finding difficulty to squat on floor and was also finding it difficult in walking on the slope. As per the evidence adduced, the claimant has suffered fracture of neck of right femur and according to the Doctor, this has resulted in a permanent physical disability of 30% to the right lower limb and 40% to the whole body. In my view, having regard to the fact that the claimant was a cooking contractor, his permanent disability to the whole body will have to be taken at 20%.

11. Since the claimant was aged 48 years as on the date of the accident, multiplier of 13' would have to be applied. In view of determination of the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-, as a result of the permanent disability as stated above, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,24,800/- (Rs.4,000/- X 12 X 13 X 20/100).

12. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was an inpatient for more than 50 days and he suffered a permanent disability of 30% to his right lower limb, in my view, the sum awarded towards pain and suffering requires to be enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

13. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was a cooking contractor, it is quite but natural that he would not be able to do all the activities that he was doing earlier, in view of the permanent disability, I am therefore of the view, the sum awarded by the Tribunal toward