JUDGMENT Heard on I.A. No. 2453/03. This is an application for dispensing with service of notice of appeal on respondents No. 1 and 2. On due consideration, application is allowed. Service of notice of appeal on respondents 1 and 2 is accordingly dispensed with. With consent, arguments heard. This appeal has been filed against composite award passed by Tribunal on 30.4.2002. By impugned award, Tribunal decided number of claim cases including Claim Case No. 82/2000 filed by appellant, claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him in a road accident. On 7.6.1997 appellant, along with family members, was traveling in Maruti Car bearing registration No. MP-09-HA-7987. They were going from Indore to Nasik. Car was being driven by Sandeep, nephew of appellant. After they had crossed Malegaon, truck bearing registration No. MP-23-DA-2489, came from opposite direction and dashed against Car. The impact was so heavy that Sandeep, Mansharam and Shantabai died and other passengers including appellant sustained grievous injuries. At the time of accident, respondent No.2 was owner of the truck, which was insured with respondent No.3. Tribunal found that respondent No.1 was responsible for causing accident, therefore, held that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Tribunal while dealing with claim case filed by appellant, also found that appellant also sustained fractures in both legs, in which rods were inserted. Tribunal also found that appellant had lost four teeth. In light of evidence of Dr. V.K. Jain (A W 3), Tribunal found that appellant has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 40%. Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- in all as compensation on all heads to appellant. This appeal has been preferred for enhancement as appellant is not satisfied with amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that Tribunal has not awarded· compensation towards medical expenses incurred and proved by appellant. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that looking to the nature and extent of injuries sustained by appellant in the accident, amount awarded towards pain and suffering is also on lower side. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that appellant is a Income Tax Payee businessman and in view of permanent disability sustained by him, there is a loss of future income also and no amount of compensation has been awarded for losses, therefore, learned counsel for appellant submitted, amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for appellant also submitted that appellant is a Income Tax Payee businessman and in view of permanent disability sustained by him, there is a loss of future income also and no amount of compensation has been awarded for losses, therefore, learned counsel for appellant submitted, amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Insurance Company submitted that looking to the nature and extent of injuries, amount awarded by Tribunal is just and proper. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and gone through record. From medical evidence, it is clear that appellant had sustained multiple fractures. Appellant had to remain under prolonged medical treatment. Appellant had submitted cash memos of Bombay Hospital. From evidence of Dr. V.K. Jain (A W 3) and Ex. P-80 disability certificate issued by him, it is clear that appellant had bilateral fracture of femur, fracture of mendible, fracture of both maxillary sinus and Rt. lateral orbit. He had injury to four teeth and fracture of right little finger at metacarpo phallingeal joint, for which he was operated at Bombay Hospital. It is also clear from evidence that appellant on account of permanent disability cannot remain standing for a long time. This has reduced his earning capacity. In view of evidence available on record and looking to nature and extent of injuries, it is clear that appellant must have undergone great pains and sufferings and also likely to undergo pain and suffering in future. Appellant has to live with permanent disability throughout his life. From evidence it is also clear that his face has been disfigured. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, a total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- would be just and proper amount of compensation, which appellant is entitled to recover from respondents jointly and severally. We make it clear that this amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is inclusive of past and future medical expenses. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application till it is actually paid to appellant. In view of foregoing discussion, appeal is partly allowed and impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. Respondent No.3 shall bear costs throughout. Counsel's fees Rs. 1,000/-, if certified.