Judgment :- By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The appeal is preferred by the claimant the Judgement and Decree made in MCOP No.3450/00 dated 30.01.2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Cout – III) Chennai/Motor Accident claims Tribunal at Chennai. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 10.05.2000 at about 14.00 hrs., when the claimant was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-10-B-0596 at Lakshmana Swami Salai proceeding towards west to east direction. At that time, a car bearing Registration No.TN-09-L-5929 was coming on the same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the injured. Due to the same, he sustained grievous injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent-car driver or not? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant? 3. Whether the claimant is entitled to any claim? 4. If so, how much?"After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondents car and awarded a compensation of Rs.55,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income during treatment period Rs.10,000/- Transport to hospital Rs. 2,000/-Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-Damage to clothes Rs. 500/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,500/-Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-Permanent disability Rs.30,000/- Total... Rs.55,000/- Aggrieved by that award, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant submitted that the Tribunal awarded compensation, which is low and meagre. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant and the amount awarded under various heads is very low and the Tribunal has not followed the principles of assessment before passing the award. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and seeks to enhance the compensation. 5. He further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and seeks to enhance the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is one Dr.Kamaraj C. Natesan. P.W.3 is one Mr. Rashid Ahmed, who is the colleague to the claimant. Ex.P.1 is the discharge summary. Ex.P.2 is the another discharge summary. Ex.P.3 is the O.P. Sheet. Ex.P.4 is the accident register. Ex.P.5 is the salary certificate. Ex.P.6 is the identity card. Ex.P.7 is the driving license. Ex.P.8 is the series of medical bills. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.10 is the rough sketch. Ex.P.11 is the charge sheet. Ex.P.12 is the X-ray. Ex.P.13 is the disability certificate. Ex.P.14 is the scanned film. Ex.P.15 is the leave certificate for hospitalisation. Ex.P.16 is the order copy for P.W.3 to appear as witness. On the side of the respondent, no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the petitioners fault and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence. 7. At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 42 years. He is Junior Assistant in Apparel Export promotion Co. Ltd., Ministry of Textiles, Govt. Of India, Karumuthu Centre, IIIrd floor, 498, Anna Salai, Chennai-35 and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. PW1-the claimant deposed that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Due to the accident, he sustained compound fracture in both bones left leg and also sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was taken treatment in Orthopaedic and specialist Hospital, Chennai and later he was admitted in the same hospital and discharged on 23.05.2000. Due to the same, he is unable to do any work as before. Immediately after the accident, he was taken treatment in Orthopaedic and specialist Hospital, Chennai and later he was admitted in the same hospital and discharged on 23.05.2000. Due to the same, he is unable to do any work as before. Because of this accident, the claimant applied leave for 77 days. But the said period of leave has been treated as half pay leave. Therefore, 154 days leave has been deducted from his account to compensate 77 days as per his leave rules. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.35,000/- for loss of leave, for which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- only. If there is no accident, the leave would have used for other purpose during his tenure in the office. Also, the learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of B. Anandhi Vs. R.Latha And Another Reported In 2002 Acj 233 wherein similar issue has been considered and the relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 are as follows: "12. The counsel for appellant submitted that the claimant was drawing salary from office during that period and the award of compensation in this aspect is not justified. 13. Because of the injury sustained by him in the accident, the claimant had to be on leave for a period of four months for taking treatment. So, he was constrained to apply for leave because of this accident and the fact that he received salary for this period is not a ground to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation for loss of earning for this period. Accordingly, we confirm the award passed by the Tribunal in this aspect." Following the above Division Bench judgment of this Court, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards transport to hospital. The injured was admitted in the Orthopaedic and Specialist Hospital. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport to hospital as against Rs.2,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.500/- towards damage to clothes and Rs.2,500/- towards medical expenses, which are reasonable and the same are hereby confirmed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards transport to hospital as against Rs.2,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.500/- towards damage to clothes and Rs.2,500/- towards medical expenses, which are reasonable and the same are hereby confirmed. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration of the nature of the injury, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.7,500/-towards pain and suffering as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-towards disability of 40%. Normally the Courts award Rs.1000/- to 2000/-for each percentage of disability. P.W.3 is one Dr.Kamaraj C. Natesan, who examined the claimant and he assessed the disability at 40%. Ex.P.13 is the disability certificate. After taking into consideration of the nature of injury and oral and documentary evidence, it is reasonable to award Rs.1,000/-for each percentage of disability. Therefore, it is reasonable to award a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rs.1000 x 40%) towards permanent disability 40% as against Rs.30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not awarded towards loss of amenities. After taking into consideration of the nature of the injury and the claimant was taking treatment for a period of 77 dyas, it is appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Loss of income during treatment period Rs.22,500/- Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/- Damage to clothes Rs. 500/- Medical expenses Rs. 2,500/- Pain and suffering Rs. 7,500/-Permanent disability Rs.40,000/-Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- Total... Rs.88,000/-Less: Already awarded amount Rs.55,000/- ----------------- Enhanced amount Rs.33,000/- Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.33,000/-(Rs.88,000-55,000) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to the deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.33,000/-with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same on making proper application. 9. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.