Judgment :- The Claimants has come forward with this appeal challenging the award of Rs.62,930.60 granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant. 2. In the accident that took place on 09.3.2003, the petitioner, who is aged about 19 years, sustained head injuries and he was admitted in the hospital where he was in Come stage and took treatment as In-Patient for more than 43 days. Due to the said injury, he has lack of memory and also suffering from Headache. The Court below had granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards injuries. Aggrieved against the meagre amount granted by the Court below, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 3. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that even with regard to the liability, the Court below ordered only 50%. The claimant was only a passenger in the bus. But unfortunately, the Court below fastened 50% liability on the passenger/claimant, which is legally not sustainable. Therefore, he challenges the liability also. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant brought to the notice of the Court that in respect of the very same accident, more than 7 persons died and 30 persons were injured and according to him, in the other cases, the Insurance company was held liable for the payment in full. Therefore, the same has to be applied in this case also. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would specifically contend that even though the claimant sustained head injuries, suffered from Come and later on took treatment as In – Patient, he has not chosen to examine a single Doctor nor produced any medical certificate or disability certificate and those circumstances, without any actual disability, the Award passed by the Court below is not correct. But insofar as the question of liability is concerned, he would also contend that in the other cases, the Insurance company had been held responsible as the petitioner is only a paid passenger in the bus. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant/appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation? 7. But insofar as the question of liability is concerned, he would also contend that in the other cases, the Insurance company had been held responsible as the petitioner is only a paid passenger in the bus. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant/appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation? 7. AT the outset, in Ex.P8, would certificate issued by the Department of Neurological Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, it is stated as follows: “CT Scan Brain: a small contusion in the right internal capsule diffuse brain swelling.” Further, Ex.P8 shows that he was suffering from right ear laceration. Injury in the head is also certified to be a grievous one. As per Ex.P7, Discharge summary, the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 10.3.2003 and discharged on 22.3.2003 and in the discharge summary, it is stated as follows: “This 20 year old male presented with alleged history of road traffic accident at 1.30 pm on 9.3.2003 near Walaja. His Glasgow come score on presentation was E4 MD V2= 7/15. CT Scan (9.3.03) showed a small contusion in the right internal capsular region and diffuse brain swelling. He was intubated and ventilated. In the intensive care unit he had pupillary dilatation on the right side. A repeat CT scan showed minimal suborachnoid blood over the convexities. He was started on antiedema measures with which the right pupil came back normal size. His score did not improve and he underwent a tracheostomy for tracheal toileting. He was shifted out to the ward where he remained for two days. His score did not improve and he was referred to local hospital for further supportive care. CONDITION ON DISCHARGE: On discharge, his score was E 2 M4 Vt=6T. There was a paucty of movements on the left side. He was on a tracheostomy, tracheal suction and toileting, Ryles tube feeds and on condom drainage.” As per Ex.P19, after the discharge from Vellore hospital, he was admitted in native place in Scudder Memorial Hospital, Ranipet, on 23.3.2006 and discharged on 21.4.2003, i.e. for a period of one month. 8. A careful perusal of the documents would categorically prove that because of the head injury, there was contusion in his brain, he was in Come for some time and he was hospitalized for 43 days and thereafter, he recovered. 8. A careful perusal of the documents would categorically prove that because of the head injury, there was contusion in his brain, he was in Come for some time and he was hospitalized for 43 days and thereafter, he recovered. Unfortunately, merely because no Doctor was examined, the Court below has taken into consideration that there is no disability. But, P.W.1, who is a student, would categorically state that pursuant to this accident, he has been suffering from severe headache and loss of memory and also occasional fits due to the head injury. He has also complained of disfiguration of face. Unfortunately, no medical bills have been produced to prove the same even though he has been hospitalized for 43 days. But the fact remains that he took treatment as In-patient for the contusion in the brain because of the accident. Taking into consideration the enormous treatment and pain and suffering undergone by the claimant, there should be a compensation for the pain and suffering and the injuries caused. 9. When we analyse on the basis of these documents and the evidence let in by the claimant, the Award has been given only on three heads. Of course, entire medical bills as produced by the claimant, have been allowed. Hence, a sum of Rs.47,930/-(36,531.85 + 12,087.50 = 47,930.70 rounded to 47,930/-) is granted towards medical expenditure. But as far as the injury is concerned, the lower Court has given only a sum of Rs.5,000/- whereas, as discussed supra, the claimant had suffered Head injury with clot in his brain and undergone treatment for 43 days as In-Patient and still, he is suffering from headache and loss of memory. Hence, on the head of injury, the amount is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.5,000/-. Insofar as pain and suffering is concerned, the lower Court has granted only a sum of Rs.10,000/- and its is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- The claimant would contend that no amount was granted by the lower Court towards transport charges and extra nourishment. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- each is awarded under the said heads. Even according to the discharge summary, he was supposed to have continuous treatment in which no amount was given. For the treatment he has taken after discharge, another sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted. Thus, totally, the Award is enhanced to Rs.1,07,930/- from Rs.62,930.60, which is liable to be paid by the Insurance company. 10. Even according to the discharge summary, he was supposed to have continuous treatment in which no amount was given. For the treatment he has taken after discharge, another sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted. Thus, totally, the Award is enhanced to Rs.1,07,930/- from Rs.62,930.60, which is liable to be paid by the Insurance company. 10. As far as interest is concerned, the lower Court has granted 6% interest. Taking into consideration that the accident had occurred in the year 2003 and also the enhancement of compensation in this appeal, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the interest will be worked out at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest, less the amount, if already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, less the sum already withdrawn, if any. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.