JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - This is an appeal brought by Deepak Verma, the claimant-injured seeking enhancement of compensation. Deepak Verma, the claimant had brought a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short ‘the Act’). The said claim petition has been allowed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 01.12.2010 in a sum of Rs.21,000/- as compensation. 2. Deepak Verma suffered injuries in a road side accident that took place on 09.12.2008 . He has suffered injuries on account of which he has suffered disability as well. 3. The claim petition is resisted by the respondents. They have denied the aforesaid averments of the claimant and have denied the claimant to deserve any amount as compensation. 4. Taking the claimant to have suffered 3% permanent disability, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6000/- to the claimant for loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as expenses incurred in his treatment and, thus, made an award for a sum of Rs.21,000/- only. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Tribunal has himself mentioned in para no.9 of the award that a sum of Rs.27,770/- has been shown spent in the treatment of the claimant vide bills Ex.P-3 to P-14. According to him, if this was the position, learned Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- for expenses on the treatment of the claimant. He has further submitted that though disability is assessed at 3% yet it is on account of restriction of movements of knee of the right lower limb as well as shortening of right limb by 1.5 cm. According to him, the amount of Rs.6000/- as loss of earning capacity is also on the lower side. According to him, no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal on account of pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the compensation awarded to the claimant is adequate and it does not call for any enhancement. 7. Vide bills Ex.P-2 to P-14, learned Tribunal himself found a sum of Rs.27,770/- to have been spent in the treatment of the claimant. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, has submitted that the compensation awarded to the claimant is adequate and it does not call for any enhancement. 7. Vide bills Ex.P-2 to P-14, learned Tribunal himself found a sum of Rs.27,770/- to have been spent in the treatment of the claimant. Instead of increasing this amount by a marginal amount keeping in consideration the fact that some amount is spent in such cases without obtaining bills, the amount has been reduced to Rs.15,000/- for which no justification has been given in the award. In these circumstances, I find that a sum of Rs.30,000/- should be the amount payable to the claimant for the expenses incurred in his treatment. 8. It is a case of 3% disability. However, the disability appears to be higher than that because it is not even shortening of right lower limb by 1.5 c.m. but also restriction of movements at knee joint. However, taking the disability at a higher figure, still much amount would not be payable to the claimant for loss of earning capacity because it still remains marginal disability. I consequently assess a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of earning capacity on account of the permanent disability. 9. Though much is not evident from the award yet the very fact that the right lower limb has been shortened by 1.5 c.m. would show that it is a case of fracture of a bone of the right leg. Such a bone takes more than two months to unite. For that period of two or three months, one remains without any work and in such situation loses his income during treatment. In this regard, I assess a sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation for loss of income during treatment. 10. Now comes the aspect of pain and suffering. The claimant has undergone long treatment. He has suffered fracture and he is entitled to a good amount in the name of pain and suffering. I, therefore, assess a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. There are still the heads of special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges left for awarding compensation to the claimant. A sum of Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum may be sufficient to compensate the claimant for his expenses on special diet, attendant and transportation. I, therefore, assess a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. There are still the heads of special diet, attendant charges and transportation charges left for awarding compensation to the claimant. A sum of Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum may be sufficient to compensate the claimant for his expenses on special diet, attendant and transportation. Thus, I find the appellant to be entitled to Rs.82,000/- as compensation for the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident. 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.82,000/- which shall be payable to the claimant by the respondent with interest as allowed by the Tribunal. --------0.B.S.0------------