JUDGMENT Ms. Navita Singh, J.: - This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation awarded to the appellant on account of injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 30.10.2008. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,45,000/- to the appellant, though he was permanently disabled qua full body i.e. there was 100% disability. He relied upon the authority reported as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Col. Sanjeev Kumar and others, [2014(6) Law Herald (P&H) 5205] : 2012 ACJ 2015, in which it was held by a coordinate bench of this Court that since there was total loss of income, multiplier of 14 should be applied for 100% disablement. Though the judgment is not binding here, yet it may be mentioned that it is distinguishable on facts as there was total loss of income whereas in the present case, it is undisputed fact that the injured is getting Rs.40,000/- per month regularly from his employer. 3. So far as the disability is concerned, the certificate Ex.P3 was referred to by learned counsel for the appellant stating that it was categorically mentioned in the certificate that the disability was to the extent of 100% and the document was proved by Dr. Balwinder Singh. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1 lac towards permanent disability, which was not even pittance. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, per contra, argued that inspite of the mention in Ex.P3 that the disability was 100%, it was written that reassessment was recommended after three months. The appellant did not present himself before the medical board after three months for reassessment. Dr. Balwinder Singh mentioned in the cross examination that the patient had not gone for reassessment as recommended. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since disability was already declared as 100%, reassessment would have been meaningless because no improvement was possible. All said and done, the fact remains that the appellant was required to present himself for reassessment. However, it also remains a fact that the Tribunal gravely erred in granting a meagre amount of Rs.one lac towards such enormous disability. The amount of Rs.one lac granted for permanent disability is, therefore, enhanced to Rs.5 lacs. 6. Regarding pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded and for special attendant, a meagre amount of Rs.20,000/-. However, it also remains a fact that the Tribunal gravely erred in granting a meagre amount of Rs.one lac towards such enormous disability. The amount of Rs.one lac granted for permanent disability is, therefore, enhanced to Rs.5 lacs. 6. Regarding pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded and for special attendant, a meagre amount of Rs.20,000/-. Enhancement is called for under the said heads as well. The compensation is enhanced to Rs.2 lacs for pain and suffering and to Rs.one lac for expenses on special attendant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that nothing was awarded regarding the amount spent on treatment and the appellant was entitled to receive the amount mentioned in the medical bills. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, however, very rightly argued that regarding expenses on treatment, the appellant had already been reimbursed by his department and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in declining compensation on that count. The appellant could not have been compensated twice over for the same expenditure. As already mentioned above, for future loss of income, nothing is required to be awarded as the appellant as per his own admission is getting Rs.40,000/- per month. The amount already awarded shall be enhanced by Rs.6,55,000/-. 8. The appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,45,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————