Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. He sustained injury due to accident that took place on 9.9.2003 at the time when he was 16 years of age. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the evidence before the Tribunal proved that appellant remained hospitalised for six times and he had to be operated upon for as many as five occasions yet a petty sum of Rs.7,000 for each of the injuries were paid to him, Rs.12,000/- was awarded for medical expenses, Rs.6,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- for transportation and nutritious food, thus a total of Rs.30,000/- was awarded. It was argued that the amount of Rs.5,000 for both the heads of nutritious food and transportation was wholly insufficient. 4. Shri Praveen Jain for Ms. Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the award is perfectly just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that although it is true that the injury that may have been suffered by the appellant resulted in permanent disability but that alone cannot be a criteria for computation of compensation. In the present case, there is evidence to this effect that appellant was hospitalised from 9.9.2003 to 16.9.2003, 16.9.2003 to 8.10.2003, 4.11.2003 to 11.11.2003, 16.12.2003 to 25.12.2003, 7.1.2004 to 20.4.2002 and 17.6.2004 to 22.6.2004 on as many as six occasions. First, he was admitted in Government Hospital and subsequently in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. During the aforesaid period, he was operated upon on as many as five occasions i.e on 16.9.2003, 24.12.2003, 12.1.2004, 21.6.2004 and 10.11.03. His pain and sufferings cannot thus be ascertained with reference to permanent injuries or cannot be under estimated only because he did not receive any fracture. The Tribunal was not justified in granting him compensation merely of Rs.7,000/- for each of the injuries because the internal injuries were far more serious, which is evident from the fact that it was considered to be a complicated case even by the Surgeons, who operated him constantly for five occasions. The award of Rs.5,000/- conjointly for transportation and nutritious food also cannot be justified. 6. In the circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The award of Rs.5,000/- conjointly for transportation and nutritious food also cannot be justified. 6. In the circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed. In addition to Rs.7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant for each of the seven injuries, the appellant is held entitled to additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for each of the five surgeries, which he subjected i.e. Rs.25,000/-. The amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of transportation is maintained. However, appellant is additional held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for nutritious food. For mental agony and suffering also and the duration for which the appellant remained hospitalised on different occasion and subjected to surgery five times, the amount deserves to be enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Thus a total sum of Rs.74,000 is held payable to the appellant as compensation. The appellant shall also be held entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition on the enhanced amount. The appeal is accordingly allowed.