Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2.

These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company

and the claimant, respectively challenging the judgment and

award dated 08.07.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.894/2015, on the

file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Additional

MACT, Hassan (8the Tribunal9 for short).

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that he met with an accident on 24.04.2015.

While he was proceeding in a car, the offending vehicle came

and dashed against him, as a result he sustained injuries. It is

his claim that on account of the accident, he had suffered

fracture of upper end of tibia left, dislocation of right ankle,

dislocation of right foot and other injuries and immediately he

was taken to Janapriya Hospital on 24.04.2015 and discharged

on 12.05.2015 and he was an inpatient for a period of 19 days.

The claimant in support of his contention examined himself as

4

P.W.1 and examined the doctor as P.W.2, who assessed the

disability of 34% to the left lower limb and 30% to the right

lower limb and he was aged about 33 years. The Tribunal

considering the material available on record, considered the

disability of 32% and awarded compensation of Rs.7,34,981/- by

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

4.

The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance

Company brought to the notice of this Court that though the

doctor assessed the disability to different limbs to the extent of

64% in total, the Tribunal accepted the disability of 32% without

assigning any reasons in paragraph No.10 and hence it is

erroneous and higher disability was taken. The learned counsel

submits that the interest awarded at 9% per annum is on the

higher side and hence it requires interference of this Court.

5.

The learned counsel for the claimant submits that

the Tribunal committed an error in taking the income of

Rs.5,000/- per month. It was an accident of the year 2015 and

the notional income would be Rs.9,000/- per month. The

learned counsel submits that the compensation awarded are

meagre and no compensation is awarded under the head loss of

5

income during the laid up period. Hence, it requires interference

of this Court.

6.

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, this Court has to

re-appreciate the material on record and there is no dispute with

regard to the fractures sustained by the claimant i.e., fracture of

upper end of tibia left, dislocation of right ankle, dislocation of

right foot and other injuries. Having taken note of the nature of

injuries and he was an inpatient for a period of 19 days and

subjected to surgery, awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- under

the head pain is on the lesser side and hence the same is

enhanced to Rs.60,000/-.

7.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,67,781/-

under the head medical expenditure and the same is based on

the documentary evidence and hence it does not require

interference of this Court.

8.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-

under the head attendant charges. The injured was in the

hospital for a period of 19 days and it was an accident of the

year 2015 and hence it is enhanced to Rs.19,000/-.

6

9.

The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-

under the head loss of future prospects and when the Tribunal

considered the loss of income due to disability and awarded

Rs.3,07,200/-, the question of granting compensation under the

head future prospects does not arise. The Tribunal committed

an error in awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- separately.

10.

The Tribunal committed an error in taking the

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

be Rs.9,000/- per month. Having perused the evidence on

record, the doctor assessed the disability of 30% and 34% to

different limbs and if 1/3^rd is taken, it comes to 21.3% and there

was malunion with regard to tibia. When the tibia was

malunited, it requires one more surgery for correction of the