JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the award dated 24.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta in Claim Case No.79/2005 whereby according to the appellant, he has been awarded less compensation. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the victim was a young boy of 20 years and he was taking tuition and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month whereas the tribunal has assessed the income of the victim as Rs.15,000/- per annum only. It is submitted that there was no reason for the tribunal to assess the income of the victim as Rs.15,000/- per annum. It is also submitted that victim had good prospects of employment, but he could not get the employment because of the two fractures which he suffered in both the legs. It is also submitted that victim remained in hospital for 19 days and the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- as expenditure for victim remaining in hospital for 19 days, which is also too low. According to learned counsel for the appellant the tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the victim for pain and suffering which he suffered. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the victim is the resident of a very small village Sirasana of Police Station Padukalan of District Nagaur and even if he would have been living in a bigger place he would not have got the income of Rs.5,000/- as part time teaching job and for part time teaching job there is no evidence. In view of the above, notional income assessed by the tribunal was assessed only by taking sympathetic attitude and for the purpose of paying compensation to the claimant. It is also submitted that more than sufficient amount has been awarded to the claimant on account of loss of income i.e. Rs.48,000/-. It is also submitted that other amounts also is awarded sufficiently adequate. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case and record as well. 6. It is clear that in support of the claim of the income of the victim, there is no material evidence and the statement of the claimant on the face of it cannot be accepted looking to the age of the victim as well as his place of living. 6. It is clear that in support of the claim of the income of the victim, there is no material evidence and the statement of the claimant on the face of it cannot be accepted looking to the age of the victim as well as his place of living. Therefore, the tribunal assessed the income of Rs.15,000/- per annum correctly and applied multiplier of 16, that could have been the maximum compensation. 7. So far as award of compensation for remaining hospitalized for 19 days appears to be too low when the tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- only. If Rs.500/- per day is awarded to the claimant then that comes to Rs.9,500/-. Therefore, the amount on this count is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.9,500/-. 8. The tribunal also committed error of law by not awarding compensation due to pain and suffering which appellant suffered in addition to the expenses which he has incurred while he was in hospital. That notional damages can be awarded to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of pain and suffering. 9. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. The appellant's claim is enhanced to Rs.9,500/- for his hospital expenses, diet etc from Rs.5,000/- and he is being awarded Rs.10,000/- for his pain and suffering. The total enhancement is therefore, Rs.14,500/- from the award amount as awarded by the tribunal. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.Appeal Partly Allowed *******