Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2.

The factual matrix of the case of the claimant is

that

on

27.08.2011

at

about

4

p.m.,

when

the

claimant/appellant was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing

registration No.MH-10/AC-2136 on the correct side of the road,

a MSRTC bus bearing registration No.MH-14/BT-1181 driven by

its driver in a rash and negligent manner without following the

traffic rules all of a sudden lost control over the bus and dashed

against the motorcycle of the appellant thereby causing the

accident. As a result of the same, the claimant/appellant

sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to

District Hospital at Sangli for treatment wherein he took

treatment as an inpatient for a period of three months and his

right leg was amputated below knee. He spent a sum of

Rs.70,000/-towards medical and other expenses. Prior to the

accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and doing

agricultural and coolie work and thereby earning Rs.1,00,000/-

- 3 -

p.a. and Rs.300/- as daily wages and maintaining his family.

Due to the amputation of his right leg and fracture of right

humerus, the appellant has become physically and permanently

disabled to the extent of 100%. Hence, the injured claimant

filed

claim

petition

before

the

Tribunal

seeking

for

compensation.

3.

In support of his claim, the claimant got examined

himself as PW-1 and the doctor as PW-2 and also got marked

documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, respondents

examined one witness as RW-1 and no documents were got

marked. The Tribunal after assessing both oral and

documentary evidence allowed the claim petition awarding

compensation of Rs.9,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 8%

p.a. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

claimant has filed the present appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently

contend that when there was amputation of the right leg below

the knee and as a result of the amputation when the claimant

had suffered 100% disability, the Tribunal committed an error

in taking only 50% disability in spite of the evidence of the

- 4 -

doctor who has assessed the disability of 55% to the right

lower limb and 50% to the right upper limb. He further

contends that the Tribunal also committed error in taking the

income

of

Rs.6,000/-

p.m.

and

in

awarding

meager

compensation under all heads. Hence, it requires interference

by this Court.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has rightly

taken income at Rs.6,000/- p.m. which also would be the

notional income. He further submits that the Tribunal has

awarded just and reasonable compensation under all heads.

Therefore, the impugned judgment and award does not call for

interference.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and also on perusal of the material available on record,

the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:

i)

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in not

awarding just and reasonable compensation?

ii)

What order?

- 5 -

7.

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that there

is no dispute with regard to the accident and the present appeal

is filed only for enhancement of compensation.

8.

Admittedly, the appellant has taken treatment as an

inpatient for more than 4 months. The material reveals that

amputation was done to his right leg below the knee and

compensation of Rs.1 lakh is awarded under the head ‘pain and

suffering’. Apart from that amputation, the claimant has also

suffered fracture of right humerus. Having taken note of the

fracture and amputation, compensation awarded requires to be

enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.1 lakh awarded by the

Tribunal.

9.

The medical expenses awarded is based on the bills

produced for Rs.14,685/- and the same has been rounded off

to Rs.15,000/-. Hence, does