CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) MR. Manish Jain, counsel for the appellant. Mr. P. K. Gupta, counsel for respondent No. 1. Other respondents absent. The appeal is being decided against them ex pane. ( 2 ) THE appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the award passed by the M. A. C. T. , Kukshi, distt. Dhar, in Claim Case No. 105 of 1994 wherein the appellant has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,000 in all recoverable from the respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 27. 6. 1994. Cost of litigation has been also awarded at rs. 500. ( 3 ) ON 17. 5. 1994 at 7. 30 p. m. the appellant was going to Silkuwa from Talanpur by riding on bicycle and when he was near hanuman Temple, respondent No. 2 who was driving truck bearing No. GRN 4859 dashed him by driving it rashly and negligently. On account of said accident the appellant sustained fractures of scapular bone as well as on some ribs. He submitted a petition for claiming the compensation from the respondents. The Tribunal after recording evidence and appreciating it passed the award which has been mentioned above. ( 4 ) MR. Manish Jain, counsel appearing for appellant submitted that compensation in respect of the injury sustained by the appellant which has been granted by the tribunal is very low, He pointed out that the disability is to the extent of 56 per cent. ( 5 ) MR. P. K. Gupta, counsel appearing for insurance company submitted that said compensation is proper and there is no scope to make a grievance. I accept the submission on behalf of the appellant and reject the submission advanced by the insurance company on this point. The fracture is to the scapular bone as well as ribs; the disability is to the extent of 56 per cent. The fractures on ribs and scapular bone have to be considered seriously. The medical officer has rightly stated that the disability happens to be to the extent of 56 per cent. The appellant happens to be a young person and he will have to live with this disability for years together and that would be giving him more trouble in his old age. The medical officer has rightly stated that the disability happens to be to the extent of 56 per cent. The appellant happens to be a young person and he will have to live with this disability for years together and that would be giving him more trouble in his old age. Keeping in view that aspect of the matter, the appellant is entitled to get compensation on account of that to the extent of rs. 40,000 (Rupees forty thousand ). The tribunal has not granted any compensation on account of pain and suffering which he was required to suffer when he was indoor patient in the hospital. He is entitled to rs. 5,000 for that. ( 6 ) LEARNED Judge of the Tribunal has pointed out in his judgment that the medical expenses would be higher in these days of escalating prices. The appellant has claimed compensation on that count to the extent of Rs. 25,000. Though learned Member has accepted the high amount on medical expenditure, he only granted rs. 7,000 as compensation to the appellant on that count. In my opinion, that is not correct. On that count he is entitled to get rs. 25,000. ( 7 ) MR. Manish Jain submitted that the appellant has lost the income which was to the tune of Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 3,000 per month. The appellant even as per his say was ice candy vendor which happens to be seasonal business. I do not think he would be getting Rs. 50 to Rs. 100 per day in village like Silkuwa, Tahsil Kukshi. Keeping in view the period for which he was indoor patient in the hospital he was entitled to get compensation on that ground to the extent of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand ). ( 8 ) THE cost of litigation Rs. 500 granted by the Tribunal is proper. The appellant is entitled to get Rs. 500 in respect of the present litigation also. ( 9 ) THUS, the appeal stands partly allowed. The award stands partly modified. The appellant to recover Rs. 40,000 (Rs. forty thousand) + Rs. 25,000 (Rs. twenty-five thousand) + Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five thousand)+ Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) = rs. 75,000 (Rs. seventy-five thousand)from the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally from 27. 6. 1994, the date of presentation of the claim petition in the tribunal. Mr. The appellant to recover Rs. 40,000 (Rs. forty thousand) + Rs. 25,000 (Rs. twenty-five thousand) + Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five thousand)+ Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) = rs. 75,000 (Rs. seventy-five thousand)from the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally from 27. 6. 1994, the date of presentation of the claim petition in the tribunal. Mr. Gupta submitted that the amount of Rs. 32,000 plus interest has been deposited in the Tribunal by respondent no. 1. That amount to be deducted from the amount which has been granted by this court to the appellant. The said amount be given to the appellant by crossed cheque within three months. Appeal partly allowed. .