JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- The above titled two appeals arise out of the award dated 7.11.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short, “the Tribunal”). In a roadside accident that took place on 9.1.2010, Hem Raj suffered injuries and Om Parkash lost his life. Smt. Dulari Devi and others filed claim petition No.10 of 2010 on the death of Om Parkash while Hem Raj, the injured claimant filed claim petition No. 73 of 2010. FAO No. 1999 of 2012 has been filed by Smt. Dulari Devi and others while FAO No. 2136 of 2012 has been filed by Hem Raj for enhancement of compensation. Vide the impugned award, learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions. Compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,16,000/- has been awarded in favour of Smt. Dulari Devi and others and compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,34,025/- has been awarded in favour of Hem Raj. 2. Om Parkash is claimed to have been 50 years old at the time of his death. He was said to have been doing agricultural work and was dealing in buffalos and was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. Claiming that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been spent on transportation of his dead body and last rites and that the claimants are the dependents of the deceased, a sum of Rs.15 lakhs is claimed as compensation for the death of Om Parkash in the aforesaid accident. 3. Hem Raj has claimed that he suffered serious and multiple injuries on his body in the accident. He was taken to General Hospital, Jind where he was medico legally examined. He was then shifted to Goel Orthopedic Hospital, Jind where he remained admitted from 9.1.2010 to 28.1.2010. He is claimed to have spent Rs. 2 lakhs on his treatment. It is claimed that he was still under treatment. He is further claimed to have been left permanently disabled by the injuries suffered in the accident. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has been claimed as compensation by him. 4. The claim petitions have been resisted by respondents No.1 and 3. Respondent No. 2 had been proceeded against ex-parte. The contesting respondents have denied the averments of the claimants regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased as well as the extent of injuries of Hem Raj and the amount spent by him in his treatment. 4. The claim petitions have been resisted by respondents No.1 and 3. Respondent No. 2 had been proceeded against ex-parte. The contesting respondents have denied the averments of the claimants regarding age, occupation and income of the deceased as well as the extent of injuries of Hem Raj and the amount spent by him in his treatment. The claim petitions are prayed to be dismissed. 5. Om Parkash is taken to have died at the age of 52 years. He is found to have been earning Rs.4,000/- per month by working as a labourer. 1/4th was deducted from the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been found as monthly dependency of the claimants. The annual dependency came to Rs. 36,000/- and adopting the multiplier of 11, a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- has been found to have been lost by the claimants in the death of Om Parkash. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been assessed as compensation under the conventional heads and a sum of Rs. 4,16,000/- has been assessed as compensation. 6. In the case of Hem Raj, the disability of 20% was found to have been proved by Dr. Satish Verma [PW-4] vide Ex. P53. The following amounts were assessed as compensation under different heads by learned Tribunal :- 1. For Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- 2. For expenses on medicines Rs.74,025/- 3. For transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- 4. For special diet Rs. 5,000/- 5. For loss of Income Rs.40,000/- ----------------------- Total Rs.1,34,025/- ------------------------ 7. Mr. Kulwant Singh Dhanora, learned counsel for Smt. Dulari Devi and others has submitted that the deceased had been an agriculturist who was also dealing in buffalos and was having the monthly income of Rs. 7,000/-. According to him, learned Tribunal has fallen in error in not taking the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- and taking him as a labourer and assessing a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. According to him, compensation has not been duly assessed under the conventional heads also. 8. Learned counsel for Hem Raj, the injured-claimant has contended that compensation has not been properly assessed under the different heads. According to him, the claimant remained hospitalized for about 20 days. According to him, he was operated upon when the conservative treatment did not appear to be relevant in his case. 8. Learned counsel for Hem Raj, the injured-claimant has contended that compensation has not been properly assessed under the different heads. According to him, the claimant remained hospitalized for about 20 days. According to him, he was operated upon when the conservative treatment did not appear to be relevant in his case. He has further submitted that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering in such a case is too low. He has also submitted that the disability of 20% in this case is functional disability and compensation should have been assessed by adopting the multiplier system. He has further submitted that compensation for medical expenses, transportation charges, special diet and under every other head is low. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted, on the other hand, that compensation has been adequately assessed in both the cases. According to him, there was no documentary evidence to prove that the deceased had been agriculturist and dealing in buffalos. He has submitted that income of the deceased has been rightly taken. He has further submitted that adequate compensation has been assessed in case of the injured also. 10. It is a case where the deceased, Om Parkash was driving motorcycle No.HR-06H-2410 and he was coming from the side of his fields. These facts are not disputed in this case by the other side and they will atleast prove that the deceased was an agriculturist and was having a motorcycle. These facts would show that the status of the deceased was not that of a labourer. In these circumstances, I hold that the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- is on a lower side. Revising it, I hold that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Deducting 1/4th therefrom, I find a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as dependency of the claimants which comes to Rs.54,000/- per annum. Multiplying this amount with 11, the multiplier selected in this case, I find a sum of Rs. 5,94,000/- as the amount lost by the claimants in the death of Om Parkash. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- is added thereto as compensation under the conventional heads and I find a sum of Rs. 6,34,000/- as compensation in the case of death of Om Parkash. 11. A sum of Rs. 74,025/- is proved on the record as the amount spent in the treatment of the claimant. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- is added thereto as compensation under the conventional heads and I find a sum of Rs. 6,34,000/- as compensation in the case of death of Om Parkash. 11. A sum of Rs. 74,025/- is proved on the record as the amount spent in the treatment of the claimant. The fact that should not have been lost sight of is that in such cases, some amount is spent without obtaining bills in the beginning of the treatment. So, some addition should be made to the amount proved as spent in the treatment by way of bills. Therefore, I assess a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation for medical expenses in favour of Hem Raj. 12. Disability of 20% is due to old fracture right trochanter with DHS with fracture shaft of femur right side with plating with restriction of right hip and right knee movements with pain. First of all, it is not clear on record that this disability is qua the whole body. It is not coming from the doctor that this disability is functional which would affect the earning capacity of the claimant. Assessment of compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/- for this disability with the claimant being 50 years of age, appears to be sufficient. 13. However, the amounts assessed in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each for pain and suffering, transportation charges, special diet and loss of income are on lower side. The claimant had undergone surgery and he must have felt the pain for a longer time. Thus, I assess a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. The compensation assessed for transportation charges, special diet and loss of income is also enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. I would like to add some amount to the aforesaid amounts in the name of loss of amenities of life which I assess at a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Resultantly, Hem Raj, the injured-claimant is held entitled to compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/-. 14. Consequently, FAO No. 1999 of 2012 is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,16,000/- to Rs. 6,34,000/-. 40% of this amount shall fall to the share of Smt. Dulari Devi, appellant No.1 and 20% each of the aforesaid amount shall fall to the share of appellants No. 2 to 4. 15. FAO No. 2136 of 2012 is also allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,34,025/- to Rs. 4,16,000/- to Rs. 6,34,000/-. 40% of this amount shall fall to the share of Smt. Dulari Devi, appellant No.1 and 20% each of the aforesaid amount shall fall to the share of appellants No. 2 to 4. 15. FAO No. 2136 of 2012 is also allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,34,025/- to Rs. 1,95,000/- in favour of Hem Raj. The other terms regarding rate of interest etc. appearing in the award of the Tribunal shall remain the same. ---------0.B.S.0------------