JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for hearing on admission, since lower Court record was called and has been received, learned Counsel on both sides agreed to make submissions for final disposal of the matter. With the consent of learned Counsel, matter was heard for final disposal. 2. Claim petition of appellant has been allowed in part by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by awarding a sum of Rs. 61,000/- with interest. Contending the award to be meagre, he is in appeal. 3. The accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the insurance coverage are not in dispute. Perused the record. 4. The only point for consideration is: "Whether the compensation awarded is just?" 5. Appellant deposed in the matter as P.W. 1. He has narrated the injuries sustained on account of road traffic accident. Dr. R. Shashikanth has deposed as P.W. 2. Ex. P. 6 is the wound certificate. Exs. P. 6 to P. 9 and Exs. P. 13 to P. 17 are the medical records. From the evidence of P.W. 2 and the medical records, it becomes evident that the appellant had sustained fracture of left clavicle which is the only grievous injury. Other injuries appear to be simple in nature. 6. Appellant was an employee in Shiva Vision. Though he claimed his salary to be Rs. 5,000/- p.m., the Tribunal has accepted his salary at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, since the employer has not been examined and no corroborative evidence is produced, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. appears to be just. 7. Evidence of P.W. 2 shows that there is 10% disability to the whole body. Doctor has deposed regarding the restriction in the movement with reference to abduction flexion, extension, internal retention, external radiation, etc. Since the appellant continues to be in employment, the permanent disability has not amounted to functional disability and hence, there is no loss of his future income. Doctor has deposed regarding the restriction in the movement with reference to abduction flexion, extension, internal retention, external radiation, etc. Since the appellant continues to be in employment, the permanent disability has not amounted to functional disability and hence, there is no loss of his future income. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the just compensation to which the appellant is entitled is as follows.- Heads Amount (in Rupees) Pain and sufferings 30,000/- Medical expenses as per bills 17,000/- Incidental charges, such as conveyance, attendant and 10,000/- nourished diet Loss of income during laid up period (4000 x 3) 12,000/- Loss of amenities of life 25,000/- Total 94,000/- In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. In modification of the award passed by the Tribunal the appellant is held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 94,000/- as against Rs. 61,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced part of compensation amount shall carry 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. After the amount is deposited by the Insurance Company, the same be released to the appellant, without any provision for deposit.