JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan J.: - All the three appeals relate to claims for compensation for death and injuries suffered in a motor accident. The claims are for enhancement of compensation determined in the respective cases. FAO No.5437 of 2010 is in relation to a claim for compensation for death of a person Sandeep. The claimants are parents and the widow. The father of the deceased gave evidence to the effect that the deceased was 30 years of age and he was an income tax assessee. He has stated that he was himself a retired teacher drawing Rs.7,000/- per month as pension. He claimed that his son was working in M/s Arya Ribbon Company, Sonepat and he was also working as a commission agent for LIC and earned Rs.24,000/- per month as income from both the sources. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted that there is nothing to show that his son was assessed to income tax and also had no evidence to tender with regard to nature of employment. The Tribunal, therefore, took the income to be Rs.4,000/- per month, made a deduction of 1/3rd and while adopting a multiplier of 17 as per the formula prescribed in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC [2009(3) Law Herald (SC) 2107 : 2010(1) Law Herald (Acc.) (SC) 65] : 2009(6) SCC 121, determined the loss of dependence at Rs.5,40,600/-. It further added Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss to estate and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The total compensation payable was assessed at Rs.5,60,000/-. 2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the Tribunal ought to have provided for a higher compensation taking the income to be Rs.24,000/-. I cannot find any reason to modify the decision with regard to the income earning capacity of the deceased with no evidence at all tendered with reference to his employment in a private company or his alleged income as a LIC agent. It could have been definitely possible for the claimants to adduce evidence regarding both the sources of income by producing some documents to show that he had canvassed any policy in LIC as an agent or secured some evidence from the employer that he was working in the private company. With no such attempt, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income notionally at Rs.4,000/- and provided for compensation in the manner that it did. With no such attempt, the Tribunal was justified in taking the income notionally at Rs.4,000/- and provided for compensation in the manner that it did. Even the conventional heads of claims have been properly assessed. The contention made by the counsel is that no provision was made for transportation. There could be no modification for the only fact that head of claim namely for transportation was not provided when there was no particular evidence as regards the same. I find no error in the assessment of compensation for death of the male and dismiss the appeal in FAO No.5437 of 2010 for enhancement. 3. FAO No.5439 of 2010 is with reference to death of a child aged 5 years. The claimant was the mother. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The determination of compensation for death of child where it is difficult to project the prospects of income or the support that the child could have given to the parent. Having regard to the fact that the death has occurred in the accident dated 15.12.2007 and going by some of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court relating to death of a child where it was also provided for special damages for Rs.75,000/- and taking the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum, I would increase the compensation at another Rs.2,25,000/- and make the compensation payable at Rs.3 lacs to the mother. The amount in excess of what has already been assessed by the Tribunal shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. The award stands modified and the appeal in FAO No.5439 of 2010 is allowed to the above extent. 4. The appeal in FAO No.5438 of 2010 is for enhancement of compensation for injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal had provided for a compensation of Rs.17,110/- that included Rs.10,110/- for medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and special diet and Rs.2,000/- for transportation. The claimant was reported to have fracture of right supra condilar, fracture of right femur and stiffness of right knee joint. Dr. S.P. Sharma, who was a member of the Medical Board had issued a disability certificate assessing the disability at 20%. The claimant was reported to have fracture of right supra condilar, fracture of right femur and stiffness of right knee joint. Dr. S.P. Sharma, who was a member of the Medical Board had issued a disability certificate assessing the disability at 20%. The Tribunal while assessing each of the heads had allowed the compensation on the basis of documents produced as regards the medical expenses. The Tribunal found that she had been admitted on 15.12.2007 and discharged on the same day. The Tribunal assessed the compensation only for medical bills said to have been with reference to treatment at Mangla Hospital. It discarded the medical bills produced from yet another hospital namely Jaipur Golden Hospital on the ground that there was no particular documents to show that she had been referred for treatment from Mangla Hospital to Jaipur Golden Hospital. I find that there is a complete lack of appreciation of what was brought through the documents. From consideration of all the documents, it is clear that she had been admitted in the Mangla Hospital at Koshi Kalan immediately after the accident and she was discharged to be admitted subsequently at the hospital at Delhi where she was a resident. The cash memo of final bills reveal that she had been admitted on 17.12.2007 at Delhi and discharged on 24.12.2007. The details of medical charges as set out in great detail in Ex.P13 make it clear that all that the hospital had charged was Rs.47,203/- for various types of treatment, medicines, investigation etc. There is no reason to suspect these bills when there was oral evidence to the effect that she had been admitted in Delhi and she had undergone a surgery also. The entire amount brought through the documents must have been provided. I will therefore take the medical expenses incurred at Jaipur Golden Hospital as having been established and would provide to the appellant the entire amount covered through Ex.P13 namely Rs.47,203/-. Even apart from that, the medical expenses incurred at the Jaipur Golden Hospital must have been provided and the total medical bills aggregate to Rs.1,65,446/-. This head of compensation would, therefore, require to be enhanced from Rs.10,100/- to Rs.2,12,649/- (Rs.47,203/- + Rs.1,65,446/-). 5. As regards the disability, it was a case of fracture of right supra condilar, fracture of right femur and stiffness of right knee joint. This head of compensation would, therefore, require to be enhanced from Rs.10,100/- to Rs.2,12,649/- (Rs.47,203/- + Rs.1,65,446/-). 5. As regards the disability, it was a case of fracture of right supra condilar, fracture of right femur and stiffness of right knee joint. The doctor, who had given evidence as PW-5 stated that the disability was temporary in nature and the temporary disability might reduce completely with passage of time but having regard to the prolonged period of hospitalization and surgery of open reduction and treatment, I would provide for Rs.20,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. She would have required an attendant and I would provide for Rs.5,000/- for attendant charges and Rs.2500/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for transport expenses having regard to several visits to the hospital that she has undertaken. For the loss of amenities of life due to temporary disability, I would assess normally at Rs.10,000/-. The total compensation would be Rs.2,55,149/-. The amount in excess of what has already been provided by the Tribunal will attract interest @7.5% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be in the same manner as determined by the Tribunal. 6. The award stands modified and the appeal in FAO No.5438 of 2010 is allowed to the above extent.