The assessment of personal injury compensation must fairly reflect the gravity of injuries, ongoing disabilities, and the impact on earning capacity post-accident, as established in the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant - injured has preferred this appeal.

2. Short facts leading to the appeal, are as follows:
In the accident, which occurred on 30.12.2004, the appellant sustained a fracture in the thigh. He has also sustained injuries in the head and other parts of the body. According to him, he was initiallly treated in Chengalpattu Hospital and thereafter, taken treatment in Hindu Mission Hospital at Tambaram, between 31.12.2004 and 16.01.2005. Again he was hospitalised in Parvathi Hospital, between 18.01.2005 and 21.01.2005. To prove that he has sustained serious injuries and hospitalised in the abovesaid hospitals, he has produced Exs.P1 to P6 _ Discharge Summaries.

3. According to the appellant, at the time of accident, he was aged 47 years and a Journalist. He claimed to have earned Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove the avocation and income, Ex.P9 _ Identity Card and Ex.P10 _ Salary Certificate, have been produced. Ex.P11 is the copy of the FIR, registered against the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TNG 7223, insured with National Insurance Company Ltd, 2nd respondent herein. A case in Cr.No.639 of 2004, has been registered on the file of D - 3 Guduvancherry police Station, Kancheepuram.

4. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent - Insurance Company has disputed the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. However, the Claims Tribunal, upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, held that the driver of the lorry, insured with the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company was negligent in causing the accident and accordingly, quantified the compensation at Rs.2,52,162/- as hereunder:

5. Seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation, Mrs.Malar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the injured has marked Ex.P9 _ Identity Card to show that he was a Press Reporter and Ex.P10 _ Salary Certificate, the Claims Tribunal ought to have fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.10,000/-, instead of Rs.6,000/-. She further submitted that when the appellant has sustained a fracture of shaft of femur in the left leg and when the same was sought to be fused by surgical process, ORIF, where IL Nailing has been done, by which, plates and screws have been fitted and thereafter, wound debridement and external fixator has been done, which was subsequently removed, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that when the appellant was hospitalised for six times, between 03.12.2004 and 16.01.2005; 18.01.2005 and 21.01.2005; 02.03.2005 and 10.03.2005; 05.04.2005 and 09.04.2005; and 25.06.2005 and 26.06.2005, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher disability compensation, instead of just Rs.35,000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head, pain and suffering is less. It is her further submission that the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher compensation under the head, extra nourishment. She sought for an enhancement of compensation under the head, medical expenses also. For the above said reasons, she prayed for suitable enhancement.

7. Per contra, opposing the enhancement, Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd., submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal itself is on the higher side. He further submitted that Ex.P7 _ Medical Bills submitted