JUDGMENT Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The injured victim of a motor accident has filed the present appeal, contending that the compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate. 2. Facts briefly are: The appellant, on 8.10.1981, was riding on his bicycle with a pillion rider, Durai, when car bearing registration No. TMC 8585 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the cycle and as a result of which the pillion rider died and the appellant sustained serious injuries. The appellant filed M.O.P.No.506of 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Chengalpattu, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The legal representatives of the pillion rider, Durai, filed M.O.P. No. 507 of 1981 before the same court claiming a compensation of Rs. 60,000/-. 3. The respondents contended that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the car and that the amounts claimed were excessive. Both the applications were clubbed together in a common enquiry. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as PW 1 and examined a doctor who treated him as PW 4, Exhs. A-1 to A-5 were marked on his side. The claimants in M.O.P. No. 507 of 1981 examined PWs 2 and 3 and had Exh. A-6 marked. The respondents had no evidence to offer either oral or documentary. 4. On the above material, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car and assessed the damages at Rs. 9,000/- and passed an award in favour of the appellant for the above amount. Contending that the damages are grossly inadequate, the injured claimant has filed the present appeal. 5. Mr. A.N. Viswanatha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the total claim put forward by the appellant was very moderate and the Tribunal ought to have accepted the same and ought not to have disallowed certain items in toto and ought not to have reduced the claim regarding the other items. 5. Mr. A.N. Viswanatha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the total claim put forward by the appellant was very moderate and the Tribunal ought to have accepted the same and ought not to have disallowed certain items in toto and ought not to have reduced the claim regarding the other items. The learned counsel in particular contended that the Tribunal had failed to award any amount for pain and suffering undergone by the appellant, which would have been considerable in view of the nature of the injuries, viz., fracture of both the bones in the right leg which had also necessitated prolonged and painful treatment. 6. The learned counsel also felt aggrieved that the Tribunal, while accepting that the appellant had taken treatment in the Bone Setting Centre at Puthur, had failed to award any amount for the medical expenses incurred by the appellant. 7. Per contra, Mr. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that in the absence of any bills to prove the expenditure for the treatment, the Tribunal was justified in not awarding any amount as expenses for the medical treatment. The learned counsel also contended that the amount awarded as compensation to the appellant was just and fair and did not call for any enhancement. 8. Exh. A-1 shows that the appellant had sustained fracture of both the bones on the right leg. He had initially been admitted in the General Hospital and after discharge he had taken treatment in the Bone Setting Centre at Puthur. Fracture of both the bones of the leg are bound to be painful and during the prolonged treatment when the injured is bound to be confined to bed and put on plaster, would cause much pain and suffering. The Tribunal though it has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and Rs. 3,000/- for the loss of future income has not chosen to award any amount for pain and suffering undergone by the appellant. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the length of the treatment of the appellant, I find that a sum of Rs. 3,000/-ought to be awarded to him for the pain and suffering undergone by him. 9. It is true that the appellant had not produced any bills for the medical expenses incurred by him. However, Exhs. 3,000/-ought to be awarded to him for the pain and suffering undergone by him. 9. It is true that the appellant had not produced any bills for the medical expenses incurred by him. However, Exhs. A-2 to A-4 show that the appellant had been taking treatment in the Bone Setting Centre at Puthur. Though the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- for the transport charges to the Bone Setting Centre and to other places connected with that treatment, no amount as such has been awarded for the expenses on the treatment and for the extra nourishment which the appellant would have taken. It is common knowledge that in the case of a fracture of both the bones of the limbs the injured would not be in a position to walk or move about. He would have to be carried and others would have to accompany him, every time he visits the Bone Setting Centre. 10. Under these circumstances, the appellant is bound to have incurred considerable expenditure for all these matters, which the court is bound to take judicial notice of, without requiring proof of every little item of expenditure incurred. I, therefore, find that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- ought to be awarded to the appellant for the extra nourishment he would have taken and for medical treatment taken outside the general hospital. On an overall consideration of all the circumstances, I do not think that any further addition under the other heads to the amounts already ordered by the Tribunal need be made, except awarding Rs. 3,000/- for pain and suffering undergone by the appellant and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the extra nourishment and for the medical treatment taken by the appellant. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal, viz., Rs. 9,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 13,000/-. There will be an award for a total sum of Rs. 13,000/- against both the respondents payable by the second respondent in the first instance. For this enhanced amount of Rs. 4,000/- interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal till the date of deposit shall also be payable. No costs.