Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2.

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the judgment and award dated 15.10.2015, passed

in M.V.C.No.3052/2014, on the file of the II Additional Small

Causes Judge and XXVIII ACMM, MACT, Bengaluru (8the Tribunal9

for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 14.05.2014 and

3

suffered fracture of both the bones and he was an inpatient from

14.05.2014 to 18.05.2014. In support of his contention that he

had suffered the fracture and suffered from disability, he

examined himself as P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.3,

who assessed the disability of 47.16% to the right lower limb

and 16% to the whole body. The Tribunal accepted the same

and calculated the future loss of income and awarded

compensation Rs.14,12,600/- and hence the present appeal is

filed by the Insurance Company.

4.

The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance

Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in

accepting the case of the claimant and awarded exorbitant

compensation considering 16% disability, inspite of the doctor

admitted in the cross-examination that fracture was united.

The Tribunal also committed an error in taking the income of

Rs.34,393/- per month. In fact, the author of Ex.P.8 salary

certificate has not been examined. Hence, it requires

interference of this Court.

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent

No.1/claimant submits that the claimant had sustained the

4

permanent disability and hence he could not continue the job

and tendered the resignation and resignation is also accepted as

per Ex.P.16 and hence it is clear that due to disability he could

not continue the job. This Court cannot find fault with the

Tribunal in awarding the compensation.

6.

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, this appeal is in

respect of quantum of compensation. Having taken note of the

accident is of the year 2014, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and suffering and he had

suffered two fractures and hence I do not find any reason to

interfere with the same.

7.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,03,200/-

under the head loss of earning during the treatment period. The

Tribunal committed an error in not considering the bank

statement and he has drawn the salary during the period of

treatment and hence the same cannot be granted in favour of

the claimant.

5

8.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,67,800/-

under the head medical expenses and the same is based on

documentary evidence and hence it does not require interference

of this Court.

9.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

under the head loss of amenities and an amount of Rs.5,000/-

under the head conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant

charges and he was an inpatient for a period of 15 days and

hence the same does not require interference of this Court.

10.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

towards future medical expenses and the same also does not

require interference of this Court.

11. This Court has to take note of the loss of future

earnings. The Tribunal accepted the disability of 16% and it is a

case of fracture of tibia and fibula, i.e., both bone fractures and

the doctor has admitted that the fractures were united. When

such being the case, taking of disability of 16% is on the higher

side. The tibia is the main bone and fibula is the supporting

bone and hence ought to have taken only 12% disability.

6

Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Having considered

the income of Rs.34,393/- per month and applying the relevant

multiplier of 8169, the loss of future earnings comes to

Rs.7,92,415/- (Rs.34,393/- x 12 x 16 x 12%).

12.

In all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.10,45,215/- as against Rs.14,12,600/