(1.) THE claimant-injured dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 38,000/- as compensation for personal injuries, by judgment and award dated 28th September, 2005, in MVC 4813/2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV Bangalore, for short MACT has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
(2.) THE fact that the appellant sustained injuries in an accident that occurred on 3-8-2003 involving a motor vehicle is indisputable. The appellant suffered fracture of the ulna and radius of the left upper limb and received conservative treatment by application of Plaster of Paris, in k. C. General hospital, is evident from Ex. P-5 the wound certificate. Dr. Prabhakar, Orthopedic Surgeon examined as PW-2 testified to the gross mal union of both bones as disclosed in the X-ray Ex. P-8, wastage of muscle, weak grip and inability to lift weight, and that the appellant requires to undergo two surgeries to set right mal union. In the opinion of the Doctor, the appellant sustained 20% whole body disability due to the injuries. Though the appellant claimed to be vendor selling cloth and earning rs. 3000/- per month, nevertheless did not place relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of both earning and avocation. So also no material was produced to establish medical expenses of Rs. 15,000/ -. In the circumstances, the MACT awarded compensation as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2682_KCCR4_2007Html1.htm</FRM>
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contends that the award is grossly insufficient and does not represent just and adequate compensation. According to the learned Counsel, the MACT fell in error in not awarding compensation towards loss of earning during laid off period; loss of future earning capacity due to disability; cost of future surgery; disability and disfigurement. In addition, learned Counsel contends that the award of compensation towards loss of amenities; pain and suffering; medical and incidentals are on the lower side.