JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has come forward with the present appeal. 2. Respondent-claimant suffered injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.8.2009. Respondent pleaded that he underwent operation for five times. He has also suffered permanent disability. He pleaded that he was earning a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month being an agriculturist. 3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,300/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000- towards five surgical operations undergone by the respondent, Rs.20,000/- each towards transportation charges, special diet, attendant charges and Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of income for eight months. 4. The main grievance of the appellant/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle is that the Tribunal should not have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards surgical operations. It is further submitted that a whopping sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. That apart, it is contended that without any material to establish the monthly income of the respondent, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was assessed as monthly income of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel appearing or the respondent-injured-claimant would submit that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation based on the materials produced. 6. Respondent has established before the Tribunal that he had undergone five surgical operations. In other words, the respondent has undergone pain and suffering for six times. Therefore, the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering cannot be termed as whopping. 7. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,300/- towards medical expenses incurred by the respondent towards five surgical operations conducted on him but strangely, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards five surgical operations apart from a sum of Rs.1,40,300/- awarded towards medical expenses for such operations. In my considered view, when the Tribunal has awarded a sizeable amount towards medical expenses, the question of awarding separately a sizeable amount towards surgical operations does not arise. 8. The Tribunal has held that the contention of the respondent that he was an agriculturist earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month was not established. Even no revenue record was produced to butress such a contention but strangely the Tribunal jumped to the conclusion without any basis that the respondent would have been earning a sum fo Rs.15,000/- per month. 8. The Tribunal has held that the contention of the respondent that he was an agriculturist earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month was not established. Even no revenue record was produced to butress such a contention but strangely the Tribunal jumped to the conclusion without any basis that the respondent would have been earning a sum fo Rs.15,000/- per month. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, the assessment of Rs.15,000/- as monthly earnings of the deceased is found to be totally disproportionate to the earning capacity, if any, established before the Tribunal. In my considered view, the Tribunal should have taken a maximum amount of Rs.5,000/- per month as monthly income. 9. In view of the above, instead of sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of income for eight months, the respondent is entitled to only a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.5000/- x 8 = Rs.40,000/-) towards loss of income for eight months. 10. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified and a sum of Rs.5,20,300/- minus Rs.1,80,000/- = Rs.3,40,300/- is awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 11. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be disbursed to the respondent-claimant towards part of the compensation awarded to him. 12. With the above modification in the quantum of compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------