JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.(Oral):- The appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident. The claimant had a compound fracture of the right humerus and fracture of the hip. It was in evidence that three surgeries had been performed at various times and he had been on leave for 473 days. He was a manager in a nationalised bank and had incurred Rs.3,80,000/- for his medical expenses. The Tribunal provided for an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for attendants, special diet and travel expenses and granted Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal had not assessed the loss of amenities of his life arising by the disability which was assessed at 50%. There was evidence to the effect that he was unable to walk, unable to ride a bicycle or two wheeler and that he was not also able to lift even a bucket of water on account of his injury. He also gave evidence to the effect that he was not able to allow his head to move downward or upward due to serious disabilities. The Tribunal had not assessed any compensation for such disability. 3. The mode of assessment of compensation for pain and suffering for disability are in a way subjective. There could be several variations. This Court has attempted to bring certain measure of homogeneity in approach by suggesting compensation for various types of injuries and how pain and suffering or disability could be assessed. In this case, for two fractures involving three operations and the prolonged hospitalisation the Tribunal had granted Rs.50,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. Schedule II provides for quantification of damage for grievous injury at Rs.5,000/-. The amount of compensation for Rs.50,000/- could not be seen to be very modest. On the other hand, it was substantial compensation which the Tribunal had given in the year 1990. In this case, the disability itself in my view has not seriously impacted his earning capacity, although the claimant gave evidence that his promotion for the post as a manager to a higher post is denied to him. This was specifically contested in the cross examination and the claimant produced no evidence to show that his consideration for promotion was withheld only on account of any disability. This was specifically contested in the cross examination and the claimant produced no evidence to show that his consideration for promotion was withheld only on account of any disability. For a manager in a nationalised back it was easily possible to prove documentary evidence and if such evidence was not adduced, I will not place any credibility to such quality of evidence. 4. I would still feel that the claimant had suffered substantial loss of amenities by the inconvenience which has suffered on account of the fracture of the hip and the fracture of his arm. I would provide for an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- for disabilities arising out of the accident on the basis that the disability itself did not affect the earning capacity in any way but it had definitely robbed him of amenities of his life. There shall be an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The liability for payment of compensation shall be in the same manner as already assessed by the Tribunal against the respondents. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. --------------------