Mr. K.Kannan, J.: (Oral).:- Both these appeals arise for consideration for enhancement of compensation. In both these cases, unfortunately the Tribunal has merely assessed the overall compensation without discussing the relevant heads of claim. In the accident resulting in injuries for a husband and wife, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively. Since the mode of determination of compensation was wholly unsatisfactory, I have proceeded to examine under the relevant heads of claim to see whether any enhancement is possible. 2. In FAO No.3047 of 1996, the claimant was said to have been hospitalized for a period of 34 days and he was working in a Water Supply Board as a Meter Reader. Before the Tribunal, he gave evidence to the effect that he had incurred Rs.16,000/- to Rs.18,000/- as medical expenses. The doctor had assessed his disability at 18%. The appropriate heads of claim would be loss of income for his period of hospitalization if there existed any proof and also provide for medical expenses and his disability. He was earning Rs.3,105/- and I would assume for 34 days of hospitalization, he would have had a period of convalescence and take the loss at Rs.6,000/-. There is no proof as regards the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.16,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. I am prepared to take the entire amount as stated by him as having been incurred. He was said to have had an attendant for him for two months and I am prepared to provide for Rs.2,000/- for attendant charges. He had fracture of the right thigh and I will provide to him Rs.7,500/- towards pain and suffering. For 18% disability he had for a fracture, I will provide to him Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities of his life and inconveniences suffered by him. Even if I should provide for Rs.2,000/- towards special diet, all the amounts total to less than Rs.50,000/- and I find no reason to enhance the compensation. The appeal in FAO No.3047 of 1996 is dismissed. 3. As regards the claim of compensation for the wife in FAO No.3048 of 1996, she was said to have suffered a fracture of leg and she had undergone a long spell of hospitalization requiring surgeries on three occasions. The appeal in FAO No.3047 of 1996 is dismissed. 3. As regards the claim of compensation for the wife in FAO No.3048 of 1996, she was said to have suffered a fracture of leg and she had undergone a long spell of hospitalization requiring surgeries on three occasions. For a single fracture that she suffered and for three surgical interventions, I will provide for Rs.7,500/- for a fracture and Rs.5,000/- each for each one of the surgeries and take Rs.22,500/- as going towards pain and suffering. For the four months of hospitalization, I will provide for Rs.4,000/- as attendant charges. The doctor, who had treated her, gave evidence that she had 15% disability and in her own evidence, she stated that she had restriction of movements of a right shoulder joint as well as right elbow joint. I would provide to her Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities of life and loss of inconvenience suffered by her. Although it was claimed that she had incurred Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- as medical expenses, no proof was adduced. If I provide for medical expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, the total amount of compensation would come to Rs.91,500/-. The increased amount of Rs.16,500/- shall attract interest at 6% from the date of petition till date of payment. 4. The appeal in FAO No.3048 of 1996 is allowed to the above extent.