USHA SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) CLAIMANT Balram lalwani sustained grievous injuries in an automobile accident on 3. 2. 1990. His left arm and hand were crushed under truck no. MPQ 3651 owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. He was shifted to Nagpur for treatment where he remained hospitalised for about one-and-a-half months. His left little finger had to be amputated and skin-grafting had to be done. ( 2 ) ON a petition being filed by Balram lalwani under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 4,27,300 under the heads of hospitalisation, nursing and treatment, special diet, transportation, expenses on servants, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity and pain and suffering, etc. The Claims Tribunal made an award of rs. 67,461 only, consisting of Rs. 27,461 towards expenses of treatment and hospitalisation, and Rs. 40,000 for permanent disability. ( 3 ) IN this appeal it has been urged on behalf of the claimant that the learned tribunal was wrong in ignoring his claim for special diet, pain and suffering, loss of earning and loss of earning capacity. He ought to have been awarded compensation for having spent money on the food and salary of two servants who were engaged, one for the hospital at Nagpur, and the other for the children, left behind at home at Katni. The Tribunal also overlooked the fact that the total amount spent at Nagpur hospital was much more than what is evidenced by the cash memos Exhs. P-1 to p-37. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent tried to justify the award. ( 5 ) THE claimant is a building contractor by profession. He is also a supplier of building material. The Tribunal found that he did suffer grievous injuries on his left hand and forearm on 3. 2. 1990 when the offending truck dashed against his Kinetic spark vehicle from behind. That he suffered crush injuries on his left arm and hand necessitating prolonged hospitalisation and treatment at Nagpur is no more in dispute. Dr. R. Harchandani, PW 5, certified that the injuries have resulted in approximately 60 per cent permanent disability. The fingers of his left hand do not bend, and there is no possibility of improvement. The left little finger has been amputated. Exh. P-36 is the certificate issued by him. Dr. R. Harchandani, PW 5, certified that the injuries have resulted in approximately 60 per cent permanent disability. The fingers of his left hand do not bend, and there is no possibility of improvement. The left little finger has been amputated. Exh. P-36 is the certificate issued by him. ( 6 ) WHEN the claimant appeared before the Tribunal for making his statement, the tribunal made this note in para 10 of his deposition that his left little finger was found amputated, and that there were marks of injury on the whole of his forearm and palm. It is also observed that he could not bend his fingers on account of injuries on his palm. We also find that the claimant had deposed on oath that his left hand has become useless due to this accident. He cannot hold or lift anything with this hand and cannot drive any vehicle any more. He had stated that he has become unfit for the work of contractor. ( 7 ) WE find that the statement of the claimant has not been challenged in cross-examination on the above points. The fact that he cannot drive a vehicle due to the disability in his left hand must have adversely affected his efficiency and income as a building contractor. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head of loss of income and earning capacity. Keeping the age and income of the claimant in mind, we would award rs. 25,000 under this head. ( 8 ) WE also find that no amount was awarded to him for physical and mental pain and suffering. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained and the prolonged treatment including amputation and skingrafting, we would award Rs. 25,000 under this head too. ( 9 ) ). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 27,461 for hospitalisation and treatment, etc. , on the basis of the receipts Exhs. P-l to P-37. These receipts included only one receipt, which was dated 16. 3. 1990 for transportation from Nagpur to Katni. No receipt has been filed about the taxi charges for going from Katni to Nagpur on the date of accident, 3. 2. 1990. The claimant has deposed that he had paid Rs. 2,000 as taxi fare on that occasion. Besides that, he had gone to nagpur about five times more, and every visit cost him Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 2,000 for conveyance. 2. 1990. The claimant has deposed that he had paid Rs. 2,000 as taxi fare on that occasion. Besides that, he had gone to nagpur about five times more, and every visit cost him Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 2,000 for conveyance. His statement on this point too has gone unchallenged. He says that he had to engage a servant for assistance at nagpur and had to spend on his boarding and lodging. He had spent Rs. 15,000 to rs. 20,000 on medicines and special diet, and that he could not procure the bills for every payment. This is understandable. We would, therefore, award Rs. 10,000 more for transport and an equal amount for medicines and special diet. We would also award Rs. 2,000 for engaging the services of servant. ( 10 ) THE compensation is, therefore, enhanced by Rs. 72,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Total compensation comes to Rs. 67,461 + rs. 72,000 = Rs. 1,39,461. ( 11 ) RESPONDENTS are directed to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. On deposit the amount shall be disbursed to the claimant keeping in mind the well settled guidelines laid down by the Apex court. ( 12 ) THE award of the Tribunal shall be substituted as indicated hereinabove. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000 if pre-certified. Appeal allowed. .