This appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the judgment and

award dated 10.03.2011 passed in M.V.C No.3672/2010 by the

XVI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III,

Bengaluru City (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').

The claim petition was filed on the allegation that

while the claimant was walking in front of H.P Petrol bunk,

Mallatahalli, Bengaluru on 06.03.2010 at about 9.00 a.m, a Tata

Indica Car bearing registration No.KA55 753 driven by its driver

in rash and negligent manner dashed against her. On account of

3

that, she suffered grievous injuries and she was taken to the

hospital.

3.

Before the MACT, respondent No.1, the owner of the

offending vehicle remained exparte and respondent No.2

insurance company contested the proceedings by filing the

written statement.

4.

During trial, the claimant examined herself as PW1

and an orthopedic surgeon was examined as PW2 and the

documents Exhibits P-1 to P-15 were marked. The respondents

did not examine any witness and no documents were marked

against them.

5.

After hearing and perusing the records, the learned

Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by awarding

compensation of Rs.6,28,000/- with cost and simple interest at

6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

6.

The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

submitted before me that the compensation awarded by the

4

learned Tribunal is on the lower side for the extent of disability

suffered by the claimant and therefore, it is liable to be

enhanced. He particularly drew my attention to the severe

fracture in the hip suffered by the claimant and also high

percentage of physical disability and submitted that the learned

Tribunal should have taken the functional disability at 100% and

higher compensation under the head of loss in earning capacity

should have been awarded. He also submitted that PW2 has

given clear opinion that she would require surgery for

replacement of hip with estimated cost of Rs.1,50,000/- and

inspite of the same, the learned Tribunal has awarded only

Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. He submitted that

even under the other heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded a

lower sum and therefore, the appeal is required to be allowed

by enhancing the compensation.

7.

Learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar for the insurance

company mainly advanced three fold contentions. He submitted

that from the assessment of disability made by PW2 himself,

5

the whole body disability cannot exceed beyond 19% and

inspite of the same, the learned Tribunal has taken the whole

body disability at 40% which is on the higher side and

therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. His second

contention is that the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on a

decision of the Hon9ble Supreme Court to fix the notional

income at Rs.5,000/- and therefore, despite this Court generally

adopting the monthly notional income of Rs.5,500/- for the year

2010, in this case the same should not be adopted and monthly

income of the claimant should be taken only at Rs.5,000/- for

calculating the loss in future earning capacity. His last

contention is that the future medical expenses estimated at

Rs.1,50,000/- by PW2 is without any basis and inspite of lapse

of about 12 years since the claimant has not undergone any hip

replacement surgery, no amount under the said head should be

awarded as she did not require any future surgery. Therefore,

he submits that there is no good ground made out to allow the

appeal and enhance the compensation and therefore, appeal

should be dismissed.

6

8.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by learned counsel on both sides and I have

carefully perused the records.

9.

The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the

records and evidence of PW1 and PW2, for the fracture suffered

in the hip as well as left humerous has awarded a sum of

Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and sufferings and