Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 29-3-2005, passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC No. 5159 of 2001. 2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 51,750/- with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. 3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement. 4. In brief the facts are. That on 7-11-2000, at about 8.00 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding on his scooter, on 6th Main Road. A Blok, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-02-EA-9261 came at high speed and dashed against the appellant. As a result of that, the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 51,750/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment, aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, medical and incidental expenses and loss of amenities of life is totally inadequate. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future earnings, loss of income during the period of treatment and attendant charges and therefore, it needs to be awarded. He therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified. 6. As against this, the learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that, the Tribunal on proper consideration of the material on record has awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, it does not call for interference. She also submitted that, the appellant has not produced anything to show that he has been removed from service and he has been treated conservatively and the disability stated by the Doctor is without any basis and there is nothing to show that the appellant is unable to do any work and therefore, no compensation can be awarded under the head loss of future earnings. She therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The point that arises for my consideration is, whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation? 9. She therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The point that arises for my consideration is, whether the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation? 9. It is relevant to note, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings. The appellant has suffered the following injuries: (i) Left fronto parietal thin extraxial heamatoma. (ii) Right frontal contusion and diffused cerebral oedema. The appellant has taken treatment as inpatient from 8-11-2000 to 17-11-2000. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards injury, pain and sufferings which is reasonable and therefore, it does not call for interference. 10. The appellant has suffered left fronto parietal thin extraxial heamatoma, right frontal contusion and diffused cerebral oedema. The Doctor has deposed that the appellant has suffered mild impairment of memory and mild gait ataseia and has assessed the disability at 60% and has also stated that the disability prevents the appellant from doing the executive Work. The appellant has to suffer discomfort through out his life. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/-towards loss of amenities of life which is inadequate. Having regard to the nature of disability and the discomfort the appellant has to suffer, in my considered view, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-would be a reasonable sum toward loss of amenities of life and accordingly, it is awarded. 11. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards attendant charges. The appellant has taken treatment as inpatient from 8-11-2000 to 17-11-2000. Therefore, it is proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,000/-towards attendant charges and accordingly, it is awarded. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been removed from service and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future earnings, though the appellant has suffered permanent disability of 60%. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, for the reason, the appellant has not produced anything to show that he has been removed from service. The employer has not been examined and no documentary evidence is produced. Though the Doctor has deposed that the appellant has suffered disability, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant is unable to do any work. The employer has not been examined and no documentary evidence is produced. Though the Doctor has deposed that the appellant has suffered disability, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant is unable to do any work. The appellant has been treated conservatively. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the appellant has been removed from service and he is unable to do any work. Therefore, no compensation can be awarded under the head loss of future earnings. 13. The appellant has taken treatment as inpatient from 8-11-2000 to 17-11-2000 and thereafter, follow-up treatment for a considerable period. Therefore, it is proper to award a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment and accordingly, it is awarded. 14. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, conveyance and nourishing food is just and proper and therefore, it does not call for interference. 15. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 1,02,750/-and the break up is as follows.--- 1. Towards injuries, pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000/- 2. Towards medical expenses Rs. 11,750/- 3. Towards conveyance and nourishing food Rs. 5,000/- 4. Towards attendant charges Rs. 2,000/- 5. Towards loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/- 6. Towards loss of income during the period of treatment Rs. 9,000/- Total Rs. 1,02,750/- Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award, passed by the Tribunal, MVC No. 5159 of 2001, stands modified, granting compensation of Rs. 1,02,750/- instead of Rs. 51,750/-with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The first respondent shall deposit the mount within eight weeks from today. The entire amount enhanced shall be released in favour of the appellant. Draw up the award accordingly.