Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the

consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final

disposal.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-

Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

3

3.

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the

judgment

and

award

dated

30.08.2013

passed

in

M.V.C.No.6834/2010 on the file of the MACT., Court of Small

Causes, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10) (8the Tribunal9 for short),

questioning the quantum of compensation.

4.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

5.

The

Tribunal

after

considering

both

oral

and

documentary evidence, considered 15% disability as against the

Doctor evidence of 42% to the whole body and taken the income

of Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded compensation of

Rs.3,14,000/- on all the heads. Hence, the present is filed by

the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation.

6.

The

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

appellant/claimant would vehemently contend that the claimant

suffered the communited fracture of proximal right tibia and

fibula; communited fracture of distal end of femur right leg;

fracture of distal shaft of radius right hand and fracture of 2^nd

4

metacarpal and proximal phalanx to II finger of left hand and the

injuries to other parts of the body. The Doctor, who has been

assessed the disability, in his evidence, he categorically deposes

that there is a wasting of right thigh cough muscle shortening by

3 cms; malunited fracture of upper 1/3^rd tibia and fibula and the

malunited fracture of femur and assessed the disability of right

lower limb 70% and right upper limb 20%. In all, he assessed

the whole body disability of 42% and the functional disability of

90%. The Tribunal committed an error in taking the disability of

15% in a case of four fractures and those fractures are

communited fracture of proximal right tibia and fibula;

communited fracture of distal end of femur right leg; fracture of

distal shaft of radius right hand and fracture of 2^nd metacarpal

and proximal phalanx to II finger of left hand. The Tribunal failed

to take note of the functional disability of 90% as assessed by

the Doctor. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other

heads also very meager. Hence, it requires an interference of

this Court. The learned counsel also would submit that in a case

of disability to the extent of 42% to the whole body and 90% of

the functional disability, the future prospects has to be added.

5

7.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Insurance Company would submit that though he

has suffered communited fracture of proximal right tibia and

fibula; communited fracture of distal end of femur right leg;

fracture of distal shaft of radius right hand and fracture of 2^nd

metacarpal and proximal phalanx to II finger of left hand, the

Tribunal considered the disability to the extent of 15%. Hence, it

does not require any interference. The learned counsel also

would contend that no material is placed before the Court with

regard to the income is concerned and the Tribunal rightly taken

the income of Rs.5,000/- per month.

8.

Having heard the arguments of the respective

counsel and on perusal of the materials available on record, the

points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error

in not awarding the just and reasonable

compensation and whether it requires an

interference of this Court?

(ii) What order?

6

Point No.(i):

9.

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, particularly, Wound

Certificate, which is marked as Ex.P5 discloses that he has

suffered communited fracture of proximal right tibia and fibula;

communited fracture of distal end of femur right leg and

fracture of distal sh