13.Both sides have not seriously disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P2 Accident Register and Ex.P4 Discharge Summary that the petitioner suffered segment fracture both bone left leg with compartment syndrome and also abrasion over let side forehead, which are grievous in nature. The petitioner underwent two surgeries on 03.04.2014 and 09.04.2014. He also underwent treatment as inpatient at Kaveri Hospital, Trichy from 03.04.2014 to 14.04.2014. Thereafter, he took treatment as out patient till 19.05.2014. The petitioner clearly stated that he suffered physical disability and he is unable to carry on his avocation as mason and agriculturist. To prove the said contention, the petitioner examined P.W.3 Doctor, who has treated the petitioner at Government Hospital, Ariyalur and issued Ex.P2 AR copy. According to him, due to the injuries suffered, the petitioner was find it difficult to stand, sit down and walking for long time. On physical examination of the petitioner and also by taking Ex.P9 X-ray, P.W.3 assessed the disability at 42% and issued Ex.P10 Disability Certificate. The Tribunal considering the fact that there was a fracture on the left leg both bone and consequently, the petitioner is having difficulty in walking, standing and sitting down and in the absence of any contra evidence found the disability assessed by P.W.3 is appropriate and fixed the disability suffered by the petitioner at 42%. The Tribunal also considering the fact that the accident took place in the year, 2014 and there was no proof of functional disability suffered by the petitioner, provided for compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per percentage, awarding a sum of Rs.1,26,000/-(Rs.3000/- x 42) on disability compensation. The Tribunal, considering the medical expenses claimed by the petitioner and on the basis of Ex.P4 and Ex.P7 Medical Bills, provided for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards medical expenses. The same is appropriate. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads appears to be nominal. There is no specific reason pleaded by the respondents/owner to modify the amount provided by the Tribunal under different heads and the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper. The same needs no interference. In the light of the above discussion, this Court find no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
