S. Siri Jagan, J.

1. The injured in a motor accident is the appellant herein. He field O.P.(MV) No.2229/01 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, claiming compensation from the respondents herein for the injuries and consequent disability sustained by the appellant on account of negligent driving of the vehicle owned, driven and insured by the respondents. After finding negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,43,900/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred only) under various heads as follows:-

The appellant submits that considering the injuries and consequent permanent disability sustained by the appellant, the compensation awarded is palpably inadequate. He points out that he suffered the following injuries, as narrated in the Judgment itself.

"Sub Trochanteric Fracture (L), Fracture of left tibial condyle laterally, Fracture 1st metetarsel bone, lacerated to left patella medially 10 X 8 X 4 cm, Lacerated wound frontal area (R) side 5 x 4 x 1cm, Contusion left knee and Abrassion (R) cheek."

(Mistakes in the medical terms accepted)

On account of the said injuries, the doctor who treated him certified permanent disability of 20%. But the Tribunal arbitrarily deducted 10% and awarded compensation only for 10% disability, which is erroneous, is the contention of the appellant. It is further submitted that despite the very serious injuries and consequent disability suffered, the amount awarded for loss of amenities is only Rs.10,000/-, which is inadequate. It is further contended that no amount has been awarded for loss of earning capacity, which ought to have been granted. The counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (CDJ 2012 SC 740) wherein the Supreme Court has held that in respect of injuries leading to permanent disability, compensation is payable both for disability as well as for loss of earning capacity suffered by the injured on account of the disability. It is further submitted that although for the purpose of reducing the permanent disability by =, the Tribunal relied on the statement in the medical certificate that another surgery is needed for removing the implant, thereby accepting the fact that further surgery and treatment is needed, no amounts have been awarded for future treatment. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation on all these heads.

2. We have considered the contentions of the parties in detail. It is true that in Suresh's case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that compensation has to be awarded under both heads namely permanent disability as well as loss of earning power in motor accident claims involving permanent disability. In that decision, the Supreme Court has held thus in paragraphs 17 to 19:

“17. The seminal issues that really emanate for consideration are whether the analysis made by the High Court in not granting compensation under certain heads and further reducing the amount on certain scores, are justified. Regard being had to the fundamental essence of “just compensation”, we shall presently deal with the manner in which the High Court has dwelled upon various heads in respect of which the tribunal had granted certain sums towards compensation. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, it is manifest that the High Court relying on certain authorities of the said court has expressed the view that once a particular amount has been awarded relating to ‘permanent disability’, no further amount can be awarded relating to ‘loss of earning capacity’. The learned counsel for the appellant has commended us to the pronouncement of this Court in B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. {(2011) 6 SCC 420}, wherein the high Court had placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. V. Ahmed Thambi {(2006)4 CTC 4 33 (Mad)}. This Court