JUDGMENT :

The claimant is the appellant in this appeal and has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer) at Pondicherry in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.1018 of 2008.

2. By the impugned Judgment and decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.93,500/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant under the following heads:-

3. According to the appellant/claimant, the appellant/claimant has produced Ex.P.15-Disability Certificate and marked the same through P.W.2-Doctor who has fixed 42% permanent disability. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation at Rs.1500/- per percentage by considering the total disability at 39%.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that in absence of contra evidence by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, the evidence of an expert cannot be ignored. In this connection, a reference is drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Ilangovan Vs. S.Murali and others, in C.M.A (MD) No.426 of 2016 dated 05.01.2017 (2017) (1) TNMAC 251, wherein, in Paragraphs 6 to 8, reads as under:-

“6. It is seen that as per the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, the appellant/claimant suffered a fracture in the right thigh bone and he has been operated and a steel plate and screw have been inserted by way of a surgery, resulting in restriction of movement. Further, he sustained injuries in the right hand and left side jaw.

7. P.W.2-Doctor determined the disability at 35%. However, the Tribunal without any contra evidence reduced the same to 30% and awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) towards disability. The said reduction is unwarranted in the absence of any contra evidence of experts and hence, this Court redetermines the disability at 35% and awards a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Five Thousand only) towards disability.

8. P.W3-Clerk from Anbu Hospital, Kumbakonam was examined and Ex.P.10-series of medical receipts have been marked to the tune of Rs.32,615/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen only). However, without any discussion and finding, the Tribunal reduced the same to a sum of Rs.19,546/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Six only) and therefore, as per Ex.P.10-series of medical receipts marked through P.W.3, a sum of Rs.32,615/- (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen only) is awarded towards medical expenses.”

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation by applying the multiplier and the amount awarded towards medical expenses also has been restricted to Rs.5,000/- even though the appellant had spent sum of Rs.22,414/-. It is submitted that merely because xerox copies of medical bills were produced by itself cannot meant that the Tribunal ought to have restricted medical bills to only Rs.5,000/-. He submits that even the compensation under the conventional heads were also meagre and were liable to be enhanced.

6. Defending the impugned Judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company submits that the appellant/claimant has suffered minor fracture namely Malunion of third metacarpal left hand and multiple injuries all over his body and took treatment at General Hospital, Pondicherry as an