JUDGMENT This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded vide award dated 18th October, 1993 in Motor Claim Case No. 91/92 passed by the IXth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. It is not in dispute that on 7.1.1991, the appellant was travelling as a passenger in Taxi No. M.P.F. 7731 which was going from Bhopal to Sehore, driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No.3. The said taxi met with an accident as a result of which, the appellant received injuries on the left side of the body. He was admitted in District Hospital, Sehore and then was shifted to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where he was treated for the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal determined the compensation of Rs. 95,000/- wherein 10 percent deduction was made for lump sum payment. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 85,000/- was awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a mechanic who is not in a position to discharge his duties as mechanic because of the permanent disability suffered recurrent subluxation of left hip and also restriction of movement in lift knee. The injury has also resulted in shortening of left ankle. Beside, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for pain and suffering which, the appellant had suffered during the treatment and will suffer in future. The appellant has also proved by evidence of Dr. Bhatnagar that he may required a hip joint replacement which may cause expenditure of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The deduction of 10 percent for lump sum payment is illegal. Learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the award submitted that the Doctors who treated in District Hospital, Sehore and Hamidia Hospital at Bhopal have not been examined. It is only on the evidence of Dr. Bhatnagar who examined the appellant in 1993, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation which is illegal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed an illegality in deducting 10 percent of the amount towards lump sum payment from the amount of compensation so determined by the Tribunal for the injuries suffered, which could not have been deducted. Besides, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of non-pecuniary damages towards pain and suffering which the appellant had suffered during the period of treatment. Besides, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of non-pecuniary damages towards pain and suffering which the appellant had suffered during the period of treatment. Considering the nature of injuries, we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be just and proper for pain and suffering. As there is no specific cogent and legal evidence for the treatment of the appellant in future about the hip joint replacement and that the appellant was advised in the year 1993 for that but up to this time the appellant did not get his hip joint replaced. Therefore, the amount claimed for future treatment cannot be awarded. In the circumstances, the appellant would be entitled, under the head pecuniary damages Rs. 5000/-; under the head of non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- and for permanent disability Rs. 90,000/-. Thus the appellant would be entitled Rs. 1,05,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of application, that is 9.7.91 till realisation. The respondent No.3 has not disputed its liability, therefore, we direct the respondent No.3 to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- with its accrued interest, less the amount already deposited within a period of two months from the date· of supply of certified copy of the order. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal shall stand substituted as indicated hereinabove. The appellant would get costs of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 750/- if pre-certified.