J. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation granted by the judgment/award dated 10. 9. 2004 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, New Delhi. A sum of Rs. 1,73,700 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim (minus interest for 2 years and 2 months ). ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') and Mr. S. L. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, and have gone through the impugned judgment/award and the record. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the appellant was going on his motor cycle on 29. 3. 1993 at about 3. 30 p. m. , when a truck came from behind and tried to overtake him from the left side. The motor cycle got 'entangled' between the front and rear wheel of the truck causing injuries to the appellant resulting in 40 per cent permanent disability. The owner and driver were proceeded ex parte but the matter was contested by the insurance company. The following issues were framed: (1) Whether claimant-petitioner Mahesh Kaul suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. DHL 55 near M Block, Malviya Nagar, New delhi by respondent driver Om Prakash? (2) Whether insurance company is not liable for award amount on any preliminary objections raised in the written statement? (3) To what amount as compensation the petitioner is entitled to? ( 4 ) ISSUE Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has submitted that the compensation is on the lower side because the appellant was a commercial pilot and was going to be selected with an international civil aviation organisation but could not get the appointment due to the accident and that working capacity of the appellant has declined and he remained immobilised after the accident for a considerable period. A huge amount was spent on his treatment which has not been taken note of by the Tribunal. Further his wife also remained on leave to attend to her husband. A huge amount was spent on his treatment which has not been taken note of by the Tribunal. Further his wife also remained on leave to attend to her husband. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it has to be a just and adequate compensation and cannot be a windfall for the injured. ( 5 ) PERUSAL of the judgment shows that the appellant has not placed any document on the record to show that he was a commercial pilot and could have got a better job, but for the accident. As regards the leave taken by his wife the learned Judge has granted some amount for attending to the appellant. As regards the compensation for pain and suffering, the learned Judge, m. A. C. T. , has granted Rs. 75,000. In my view, it is on the lower side because the left leg of the appellant was crushed, right arm was fractured, skin-grafting had to be done after removing skin from the right leg, there were injuries to the muscles also and he remained in the hospital for three months and in all he remained on leave for about 8 months. There is permanent disability to the extent of 40 per cent. One can visualise the pain and suffering for all these grievous injuries which he has undergone for no fault. Therefore, I enhance the compensation towards pain and suffering from rs. 75,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 with 9 per cent interest (minus interest for a period of 2 years and 2 months as already ordered by the learned M. A. C. T. ). The enhanced amount be paid by the insurance company to the appellant within 30 days from today. ( 6 ) APPEAL is disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.