Judgment :- N.K. Patil, J. These two appeals are respectively filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’ for short) and the claimant against the very same impugned common judgment and award dated 21st June 2002, passed in M.V.C.No.2588/1994, by the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayo hall Unit, Bangalore, (for short, ‘Tribunal’), awarding compensation of Rs. 5,55,500/-in favour of the claimant as against his claim for RS. 15,71,140/-. 2. While the Corporation has filed the appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive, exorbitant and needs to be substantially reduced, the claimant has filed the appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is inadequate and needs to be enhanced, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 3. The facts in brief are that, the claimant claims to be aged about 29 years, at the time of accident, working as Flying Air Crew Officer at ASTE Air Force, PMG, Vimanapura, Bangalore. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That at about 1:15 P.M, on 25-05-1994, when the claimant was riding his scooter bearing No.KA-03/K-3461, along with his mother in law, from South to North, carefully towards left side of the Airport road and was taking turn towards Richmond Road, Trinity Circle, all of a sudden, a Bus bearing No.KA-07/F-60, came at high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the claimant at the Junction of Airport Road and Richmond Road, as a result of which, he sustained injuries such as fracture of shaft of femur left and frontal contusion head and admitted to Command Hospital. On the same day, open reduction K nailing of left femur was done and was discharged on 19-07-1994 and again, he was re-admitted to the said Hospital for further treatment. 4. It is the case of the claimant that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has undergone treatment for about 55 days in the Hospital as in-patient and has spent considerable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and further, on account of the disability suffered in the accident, he has been demoted and his salary has been substantially reduced and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably. 5. 5. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 15,71,140/-against the Corporation and the driver of the offending Bus. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 21st June 2002. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,55,500/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. We have heard learned counsel for Corporation and learned counsel appearing for claimant, for considerable length of time. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for Corporation, Sri. F.S. Dabali, vehemently submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in awarding global compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-towards loss of flying pay, loss of flying ration, loss of testing allowance, loss of annual leave and benefit of encashment of leave, without assigning valid reasons. He submitted that the said compensation is totally irrational, arbitrary and cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be set aside at the threshold, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for claimant submitted that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file and in fact, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of future prospects and therefore, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the original records made available, threadbare, the points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are; I) Whether the compensation awarded by Tribunal under various heads is just and reasonable? II) Whether the Corporation had made out a case for setting aside the global compensation of Rs. 05.00 lakhs? Re-Point (I): After perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it is seen that the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. II) Whether the Corporation had made out a case for setting aside the global compensation of Rs. 05.00 lakhs? Re-Point (I): After perusal of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it is seen that the occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the claimant are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about 29 years and working as Flying Air Crew Officer at ASTE Air Force, PMG, Vimanapura, Bangalore. It is further not in dispute that he met with an accident purely on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus and on account of the same, he has sustained fracture of shaft femur left and frontal contusion head and has taken treatment as in-patient for about 55 days. He has also under gone a surgery and another surgery was required to be done. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant available on file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 25,500/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and hence, it does not call for interference. However, the Tribunal seriously erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards pain and sufferings, and further erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. Admittedly, the claimant has sustained fracture of shaft of femur left and frontal contusion head and K nailing of left femur was done. Because of the injuries and even thought the Doctor has not assessed the percentage of disability, we presume that the claimant must have suffered tremendous mental agony apart from other discomforts and unhappiness. The injuries suffered may also, to some extent come in the way of his daily discharge of duties. Therefore, having regard to all these aspects, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/-towards pain and sufferings as against Rs. 30,000/-awarded by Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness on account of disability. Further, during the course of hearing, the claimant who is present before the Court submitted through his counsel that because of the injuries sustained, he was laid up for a total period of 55 days and is entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,900/-towards loss of income during treatment period. We accept the same and award it under the said head. 7,900/-towards loss of income during treatment period. We accept the same and award it under the said head. Re-Point (II): So far as awarding of global compensation of a sum of Rs. 05.00 lakhs towards loss of flying pay, loss of flying ratio, loss of testing allowances, loss of annual leave and benefit of encashment of leave is concerned, we are of the considered view that the same is awarded without any basis and without any reasoning. The said huge global compensation is awarded on the mere assumption and presumption and also on the submission made by the counsel representing the claimant that in view of the injuries sustained, the claimant has lost the future opportunity of going to the next higher rank. The Tribunal, without assessing the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material and without any authenticated document in support of the said submission of the counsel for the claimant, has awarded the said compensation. Therefore, the said compensation is liable to be set aside. Further, it is significant to note, when we directed the learned counsel for Corporation as well as the counsel for the claimant to ascertain from the claimant, who is all along present before the Court, as to the rank in which he is at present serving in the Navy, learned counsel appearing for claimant, on instructions from the claimant submitted that, the claimant is serving as Commander entrusted with ground duties. Further, it is noticed that as against the basic salary of Rs. 3,000/- and gross salary of Rs. 7,900/-at the time of accident, he is at present getting basic pay of Rs. 48,710/- and gross salary of Rs. 87,648/- per month. Therefore, this proves beyond all reasonable doubts that there is neither demotion in rank nor decrease in salary of the claimant on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. He has continued to get the regular pay scale just like others without any demotion in the rank. The Tribunal, without going detail into this aspect of the matter, has awarded huge compensation, without assigning any valid reasons. The Tribunal, before awarding such a huge compensation, ought to have ascertained regarding the detailed entitlement of promotion, if the claimant is continued in the same scale, had he not sustained the injuries, the prospects of promotion, increase in salary, etc. The Tribunal, before awarding such a huge compensation, ought to have ascertained regarding the detailed entitlement of promotion, if the claimant is continued in the same scale, had he not sustained the injuries, the prospects of promotion, increase in salary, etc. Even before this Court, not a single document is produced to substantiate that there is reduction in rank/demotion or decrease in salary on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Only the nature of work is changed. Instead of flying Commander, he is working as Commander, with ground duties. Therefore, in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence to the effect that there is any reduction in rank or decrease in salary, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 05.00 lakhs towards loss of flying pay, loss of flying ration, loss of testing allowances, loss of annual leave and benefit of encashment of leave. Further, we are fully convinced from the information provided to the learned counsel for claimant that, there is no reduction in rank/cadre and also that there is in fact, substantial increase in the salary of the claimant, on par with others, as stated earlier. Therefore, holding that the Corporation has made out a clear case for setting aside the said compensation, we hereby set aside the compensation of Rs. 05.00 lakhs awarded by Tribunal towards loss of flying pay, loss of flying ration, loss of testing allowances, loss of annual leave and benefit of encashment of leave. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstance of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by Corporation and the appeal filed by the claimant are allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award dated 21st June 2002, passed in M.V.C.No. 2588/1994, by the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayo hall Unit, Bangalore, is hereby modified, reducing the compensation from Rs. 5,55,500/- awarded by Tribunal to a sum of Rs. 1,33,400/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The breakup is as follows: Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing Rs. 25,500/- food and attendant charges Towards Loss of amenities, Rs. 50,000/- discomforts and unhappiness Towards loss of income during Rs. 07,900/- Treatment period Total Rs. 1,33,400/-, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The breakup is as follows: Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Towards conveyance, nourishing Rs. 25,500/- food and attendant charges Towards Loss of amenities, Rs. 50,000/- discomforts and unhappiness Towards loss of income during Rs. 07,900/- Treatment period Total Rs. 1,33,400/- The claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,33,400/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as against a sum of Rs. 5,55,500/- awarded by Tribunal and the entire sum may be released in favour of claimant, immediately on deposit made by the Corporation. Learned counsel appearing for Corporation, at this stage submitted that, Corporation has already deposited a sum of Rs. 03.00 lakhs before the Tribunal, in addition to the statutory deposit. If that is the case, it is needless to clarify that any amount in excess of Rs. 1,33,400/-with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, shall be refunded to the Corporation, after making due payment to the claimant, as stated above. Office to draw award, accordingly.