JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This appeal by the claimant has been filed for enhancement of compensation and is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Khowai dated 23.11.2007 passed in TS(MAC) No. 12 of 2007 whereby compensation of Rs. 81,130/- only was granted in favour of the appellant-claimant under the following heads: The main grievance of the claimant is that the amount of compensation awarded is very much on the lower side. It is submitted that the expenses of medicines alone were Rs. 63,363/- and in addition thereto the claimant must be awarded sufficient amount for attendant charges, boarding and lodging etc. With regard to transportation expenses, it is urged that though the learned Tribunal had only awarded Rs. 11,130/-, the amount actually spent for Rs. 18,063/-. From the evidence on record the following facts clearly emerge. The claimant was immediately after the accident admitted in the G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala on 4th March, 2006 and was discharged therefrom on 14th March, 2006. He was suffering from fracture of his right arm. Thereafter on 14th March, 2006 the claimant went to Calcutta with one attendant and returned from there on 7th April, 2006. In Calcutta treatment was done and a nail was inserted and thereafter he had to go again to Calcutta on 27th November, 2006 and returned from there on 25th December, 2006. He was actually admitted in hospital only on 10th December, 2006 and discharged on 15th December, 2006. He also underwent physiotherapy treatment. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner had three bouts of treatment, one at Agartala, second at Calcutta and the third and final one again at Calcutta. The claimant has placed on record bills of Rs. 63,000/- for the amounts spent on his treatment. There is no reason to disbelieve these documents. In addition to that some expenses may be incurred for which bills may not have been kept, thus the claimant is awarded Rs. 70,000/- as cost of treatment. 2. Coming to the cost of transportation as claimed by the claimant he spent more than Rs. 18,063/- for air travel expenses alone. In addition there to there must be some taxi charges etc. and, therefore, he is awarded Rs. 20,000/- as transportation expenses. 3. 70,000/- as cost of treatment. 2. Coming to the cost of transportation as claimed by the claimant he spent more than Rs. 18,063/- for air travel expenses alone. In addition there to there must be some taxi charges etc. and, therefore, he is awarded Rs. 20,000/- as transportation expenses. 3. The claimant has placed on record certain bills of hotels in which he himself stayed while in Calcutta or sometimes his attendants stayed at Calcutta. I am not taking these bills into consideration because no record has been produced from the hotel and only one receipt has been produced. 4. Be that as it may, the claimant has to be awarded attendant charges for his treatment both at Agartala and at Calcutta. In Agartala the claimant was in hospital for about 10 days and the cost of attendant in the year 2006 is taken at Rs. 200/- per attendant or Rs. 400/- per day for two attendants and the cost of attendants at Agartala itself works to Rs. 4000/-. In Calcutta the claimant had one attendant over two different spans. If the total of the two different spans is added the same works out to 23 days on the first occasion and about 30 days on the second occasion. As far as the first occasion is concerned the claimant was admitted in hospital, therefore, the cost of attendants for these 23 days @ Rs. 500/- per day (which would be included boarding, lodging and transport expenses of the attendants) works out to Rs. 11,500/-. As far as the second visit to Calcutta is concerned it is apparent by that time the claimant was himself moving around and he stayed in Calcutta for a long period only for his physiotherapy, for which no attendant was required. However, for the period when was again admitted in hospital he will be entitled to attendant charges and he remained admitted in hospital only for 15 days and @ Rs. 500/- per day Rs. 7,500/- is awarded. So, therefore, the total cost of attendant comes to Rs. 23,000/- 5. The claimant remained on leave for 390 days from the date of accident till 29th March 2007 i.e. for a period of 390 days or 13 months. The salary of the claimant was Rs. 10,450/- per month and in my view he is entitled to entire salary for this period. 23,000/- 5. The claimant remained on leave for 390 days from the date of accident till 29th March 2007 i.e. for a period of 390 days or 13 months. The salary of the claimant was Rs. 10,450/- per month and in my view he is entitled to entire salary for this period. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the claimant remain on earned leave for some period and on half pay for some period and, therefore, full amount should not be paid to the claimant. I am not at all in agreement with this contention because it is a well known fact that at the time of retirement any employee of the Government can encash up to 300 days of his leave. By remaining on leave for such a long period the claimant cannot encash this period. The loss to him is total and the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of this loss. Therefore, he is awarded compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- under this head. 6. The claimant remained on leave for almost 13 months. He was admitted in hospital at Agartala and twice at Calcutta. He kept suffering during this entire period and, therefore, he has to be suitably compensated for the pain and suffering. Keeping in view the long period of treatment an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded for pain and suffering. 7. It is contended on behalf of the claimant that the disability has now been assessed at 60% whereas earlier it was assessed at 40%. Therefore, it is claimed that he should granted much higher amount for future loss of income and discomfort in life. I am of the view that the percentage of disability is not in relation to the entire body but only in relation to the right limb because the fracture is only on the limb and even if the whole arm had been amputated the disability would not be 60%. Therefore, I am taking this disability to be of the right arm only. There is no manner of doubt that the claimant has a very severe disability in his right arm and throughout his life will be unable to live like a normal human being. He will be unable to pursue normal pursuit which he could have done when he was not disabled. He cannot play or take part in other physical activities like a normal human being. He will be unable to pursue normal pursuit which he could have done when he was not disabled. He cannot play or take part in other physical activities like a normal human being. He has been compensated for the pain and suffering but he also has to be compensated for the loss of amenities and future discomfort in life. Keeping in view the nature of his disability, I award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under this head. 8. It is an admitted case that the claimant has not suffered any loss of income because he continues to be in job. No evidence has been led to show that his promotional avenues have been affected in any manner. Therefore, on this count he cannot be granted any compensation. 9. The total compensation therefore, works out to Rs. 3,28,000/-. The award is accordingly enhanced from Rs. 81,130/- to Rs. 3,28,000/- i.e. by Rs. 2,46,870/- which is rounded off to Rs. 2,47,000/-. This amount is to be paid equally by the two insurance companies i.e. the National Insurance Company Ltd. and the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Both the insurance companies have deposited the award of the Tribunal. They are, therefore, directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,47,000/- in equal share of Rs. 1,23,500/- each along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. 10. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid order. No order as to costs. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.