1. In this appeal filed under S.173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award in MVC No. 704 of 2014 dated 30.6.2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT at Hassan (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,49,000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 with interest at 18 per cent per annum for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 21.8.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. The doctor, who was examined as PW 2 has assessed disability at 22 per cent to the left lower limb and 46 per cent to the right lower limb. The doctor has given the opinion on the basis of the medical records. However, Claims Tribunal has taken his permanent disability to the whole body at 15 per cent. The Tribunal has not taken the disability of the appellant to the left lower limb. It is further submitted that appellant was hospitalised for 48 days in Janapriya Orthopaedic and Accident Care Centre, Hassan and for 14 days in Kasturba Medical College & Hospital, Mangaluru. He had spent a sum of Rs. 3,44,473 towards medical expenses. All these medical expenses are supported by bills. However, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 towards medical expenses. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by him, the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain and suffering. The award of compensation towards conveyance and nourishment is also on a lower side. The award of compensation towards future medical expenses is again on a lower side. The Tribunal has only taken Rs. 5,000 per month as his earnings for the purpose of computation of loss of future earning capacity. The claimant was an agriculturist. He was earning more than Rs. 40,000 per month.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has sought to justify the impugned judgment and award. It is argued that the Tribunal has rightly taken the permanent disability at 15 per cent to the whole body. The medical expenses awarded is on the basis of the bills. It is further submitted that the appellant has not produced any material in order to support his contention that he was earning Rs. 40,000 per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has notionally fixed his income at Rs. 5,000 per month.

5. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the respondent Corporation for payment of compensation.

6. Having regard to the contentions urged, the only question for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?

7. In a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.8.2013, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. The wound certificate at Exh. P7 discloses that the appellant had sustained the following injuries:

"(1) Severe soft tissue loss right knee.

(2) Type IIIC open fracture right femur, with commutation.

(3) Fracture medial condyle right tibia.

(4) Type IIIC open fracture right tibia and fibula with bone loss and soft tissue loss.

(5) Fracture medial malleolus right.

(6) Fracture fibula head left."

8. Dr. Abdul Basheer, orthopaedic surgeon, Janapriya Orthopaedic and Accident Care Centre, Hassan, was examined as PW 2. He had treated the claimant. He has deposed that the appellant had sustained 22 per cent permanent disability to the left lower limb and 46 per cent permanent disability to the right lower limb. The case - sheet, 7 X - rays and the MLC extracts have been marked in his evidence. Though he was cross - examined at length, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to discredit his version. It is also evident that the claim