Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The issue of liability of the Insurance Company and the rashness and negligence of the insureds driver are not in dispute. 2. The claim of the appellant was supported through his own evidence as PW3 where he had given eyidence to the effect that he was taken first to the General Hospital, Hansi and after being given first-aid, he was referred to Medical College, Rohtak where he remained from 04.11.1994 to 06.02.1995. He had given evidence to the effect that he had spent Rs.60,000/- for his medical expenses and that he had visited the hospital at least 10 to 12 times for follow-up treatment. His evidence was that he had incurred transport expenses @ Rs.700/- for each one of his visits to the hospital. The doctor, who treated him, Mr. K.C.Mudgil, gave evidence of the effect that the claimant suffered fracture of right femur, fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of left femur and fracture of fibula left side. The doctor also said that 14 bottles of blood had been given to him and the cost of those bottles had been met by the claimant. He certified that the claimant had suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 60% and that he would not be in a position to do any physical work. He also gave evidence to the effect that he would require a further operation in future. The medical bills relating for the purchase of medicines, apart from purchase of blood bottles, were produced as P4 to P103 that totalled up to Rs. 17,923/-. Yet another doctor S.S. Malik was also examined to speak about the entries made in the MLR as a person, who had caused such entries. 3. While assessing the compensation, the Tribunal provided for the entire expenses covered P4 to P 103 and had also taken the evidence of the doctor to substantiate the claim that he had 14 bottles of blood purchased for Rs.700/- per bottle. The total medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal would, therefore, require no modification. As regards the transport expenses, the Tribunal had accepted the claimants contention in toto and provided for 10 such visits @ Rs.700/- and had awarded Rs.7,000/-. The total medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal would, therefore, require no modification. As regards the transport expenses, the Tribunal had accepted the claimants contention in toto and provided for 10 such visits @ Rs.700/- and had awarded Rs.7,000/-. The doctors evidence was also accepted for the requirement of future medical expenses and another Rs.10,000/- was provided for. For 60% disability that had caused him total disablement, the Tribunal had provided for Rs.92,000/- and the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. For four fractures, 1 would provide @ Rs.5,000/- per fracture as a case arising before 2000 and take Rs.20,000/- as going towards to pain and suffering. For surgeries carried out, I would provide for an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- and take the compensation for pain and suffering at Rs.25,000/-. This means an additional award of Rs. 15,000/- over what has been already granted by the Tribunal. As regards the physical disability arising from his injuries, the counsel has not placed before me any material as to how this injury has irnpacted his earning capacity. I have dealt the issue of ascertainment of compensation for injuries in a decision rendered in Madan Lal Papneja v. State of Haryana and others, (2011-1)161 PLR 61 and it shall become possible to ascertain the loss of earning capacity only if specific evidence as to how the disability has impacted the earning capacity. With no material placed before me, I would take the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in assessing a flat rate of compensation for the percentage of disability as not requiring any intervention, however, unsatisfactory the method of award of such compensation could be. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.92,000/- for 60% disability for an accident that has taken place in the year 1994 and I would retain the same. It is admitted that the claimant was hospitalized for nearly four months and that he ought to have suffered total loss of earning during that time. I would provide for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the period of his hospitalization. In the matter of reappraisal, I would, therefore, add Rs.25,000/- to what has been already awarded by the Tribunal and this additional amount shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. I would provide for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the period of his hospitalization. In the matter of reappraisal, I would, therefore, add Rs.25,000/- to what has been already awarded by the Tribunal and this additional amount shall bear interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. The liability shall be of respondents 1 to 3 and the Insurance Company shall be liable to indemnify the award against the respondents 1 and 2 as well. 4. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.