JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; C.J.:- These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one accident. Initially, the liability had been fixed on the owner of the vehicle and one appeal was filed against the said award. Later, the owner of the vehicle was exonerated and the liability to pay the compensation was shifted to the Insurance Company. Thereafter, the claimant filed a second appeal. Both the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of together. The undisputed facts are that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 16-05-2001. In the said accident, the humerus bone of her right arm was fractured. It appears that the claimant was first taken to the hospital at Kamalpur and on 21-05-2001 she was shifted to the Nightingale Hospital & Research Centre at Silchar where a plate was inserted in her elbow. She remained in hospital from 21-05-2001 to 31-05-2001. Thereafter, the claimant was again readmitted on 03-03-2002 and discharged on 04-03-2002 for removal of the implant. This implant was removed thereafter. Three years later, the claimant went to the Christian Medical College, Vellore complaining that her elbow was stiff since the time of the accident. She claimed that after implant surgery, the wound was infected and skin grafting was done in August, 2001. Again an operation was done on 18-05-2004 and the claimant was remained admitted in the Christian Medical College, Vellore from 17-05-2004 to 26-05-2004. The claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation and the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,65,800/- under the following heads:-- This award is under challenge in this Court. 2. It is urged on behalf of the claimant by learned counsel that the award is on the lower side and the claimant has not been awarded full compensation. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents it is urged that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 3. The claimant claimed that she had spent Rs. 1,73,500/- on her treatment, but according to learned Tribunal she did not produce the documents in support thereof. The Tribunal without referring to any evidence awarded her Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of her treatment, board, lodging and transportation. In my opinion, this was not properly done. 3. The claimant claimed that she had spent Rs. 1,73,500/- on her treatment, but according to learned Tribunal she did not produce the documents in support thereof. The Tribunal without referring to any evidence awarded her Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purpose of her treatment, board, lodging and transportation. In my opinion, this was not properly done. The Tribunals must take care to ensure that they refer to the evidence and after referring to the evidence and other material placed on record, they should come to their findings and then assess the damages. Damages cannot be assessed only on conjectural basis. 4. The claimant is an Arts Graduate and claims that she was running a Nursery School at her residence in Agartala though her husband was posted and residing at Halahali in Kamalpur. She also claimed that due to the vehicular accident, she lost her ability to work as a teacher and lost her entire income. The disability certificate of the claimant has also been proved on record and it shows that there is post traumatic/operative elbow stiffness and the extent of disability has been shown as 45%. Stiffness of elbow can never lead to 45% disablement in respect of the entire body. It is more than obvious that this disability is in relation to the right upper limb and not in relation to the entire body. The claimant did not care to examine the doctors who had issued the certificate and on seeing the certificate in which the photograph of the claimant is also there, it is apparent that the claimant's elbow alone is stiff. Such stiffness can never lead to 45% disability to the body and, therefore, I take this disability of 45% in relation to the limb. 5. Coming to the expenditure, the claimant has placed on record expenses of receipts for medicines and hospital charges for about Rs. 51,000/-. Keeping in view the long drawn out treatment, I award her Rs. 65,000/- for medical expenses. 6. The claimant also had to travel from Kamalpur to Silchar on at least three occasions and she went to Vellore on one occasion. The train tickets have been placed on record. She has not travelled by air and I award her a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for travelling expenses. 7. 65,000/- for medical expenses. 6. The claimant also had to travel from Kamalpur to Silchar on at least three occasions and she went to Vellore on one occasion. The train tickets have been placed on record. She has not travelled by air and I award her a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for travelling expenses. 7. Keeping in view the fact that she travelled by train and she had to require one attendant also, I award a sum of Rs. 2,000/-for each journey from Kamalpur to Silchar and back, i.e. Rs. 6,000/- and for the journey to Vellore, she and her spouse are awarded another sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, Rs. 16,000/- is awarded under this head. 8. The claimant has placed a lot of vouchers claiming to be vouchers of hotels and restaurants. They are not on any bills or cash memos, but are just slips and no reliance can be placed on them. Having held so, the fact remains that whenever the claimant and her husband visited these places, she would have required to stay either in the hospital and her husband would be required to stay in some room outside. These amounts have also to be calculated. The claimant was in Kamalpur Hospital on 16-05-2001 and she remained in Kamalpur till 20-05-2001. However, there is no proof whether she was hospitalized during this stage or not. From 21-05-2001 to 31-05-2001, she was in the Nightingale Hospital & Research Centre at Silchar and for 10 (ten) days she would have required one attendant. I am saying that the claimant required only one attendant because she only had a fracture of an elbow. The cost of one attendant in the year 2001 even outside the State is taken at Rs. 500/- including boarding and lodging and for 10(ten) days, the cost of the attendant comes to Rs. 5,000/- for the first visit to Silchar. Second time she went to Silchar for skin grafting and she remained admitted on 20-06-2001 and discharged on 23-07-2001, i.e. for 33 days. Here also cost of the attendant taken including board, lodging, stay etc. at Rs. 500/- per day and for 33 days, it works out to Rs. 16,500/-. For the third time, she was in Silchar only for two days and, therefore, the cost of attendant is taken at Rs. 1,000/-. Here also cost of the attendant taken including board, lodging, stay etc. at Rs. 500/- per day and for 33 days, it works out to Rs. 16,500/-. For the third time, she was in Silchar only for two days and, therefore, the cost of attendant is taken at Rs. 1,000/-. In Chennai, the claimant remained in hospital from 17-05-2004 to 26-05-2004, i.e. for 10 days, but keeping in view the time period required to travel to Chennai etc., she is awarded attendant charges for 15 days, i.e. Rs. 7,500/-. Therefore, the total amount of attendant charges comes to Rs. 30,000/-. 9. The claimant has not been awarded any amount for loss of actual income. As far as income is concerned, other than her bald statement that she was running a Nursery School at Agartala, the claimant had not placed any material on record to show that a school was being run. If she was running a school, there would have been some record of the same. Neither any recognition certificate from the Education Department nor any other material has been placed on record that she was running a Nursery School. Admittedly, her husband was residing in near Kamalpur. She also has got her entire treatment done at Silchar which shows that she was residing not in Agartala but in Kamalpur. If she had been residing at Agartala, she would have got her treatment done at the G.B. Hospital, Agartala. No doubt, the accident took place in Kamalpur, but if the claimant had actually been residing in Agartala with her son, as she claims, then the later part of her treatment would have been at Agartala. There is no record of any treatment whatsoever at Agartala. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that she was running a school. Having held so, there can be no doubt of the fact that she was an Arts Graduate and, therefore, qualified to be a teacher. She could have worked as a teacher. The question is whether the disability is such which disqualifies her from working as a teacher. In this case, no doctor has been examined and other than the disability certificate there is no evidence worth the name to show that she is incapacitated from functioning as a teacher. She could have worked as a teacher. The question is whether the disability is such which disqualifies her from working as a teacher. In this case, no doctor has been examined and other than the disability certificate there is no evidence worth the name to show that she is incapacitated from functioning as a teacher. A person with a stiff elbow can continue to function as a teacher and there is nothing which makes it impossible for her to function as a teacher. Accepting that the version of the claimant that she was running her own Nursery School is correct, then I also fail to understand what prevented her to continue to run the school after the accident. A fracture of the elbow does not mean that a person cannot work as a teacher. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the assessment of loss of income as done by the Tribunal. 10. Having said so, the fact remains that the claimant could not have worked for the long period of time which she remained under treatment. At least from June, 2001 till she was discharged after skin grafting was done on 23-07-2001 and for some period thereafter she would have been without any work. Even if she was a housewife, her contribution to the house has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am of the view that keeping in view the nature of the injuries, she could not have done any work at all for at least four months and she is awarded Rs. 12,000/- for loss of income. 11. As far as loss of future income is concerned, in my view, there is no proof of any loss of income, but the fact remains that the claimant is not as fit as before and, therefore, she will have to be awarded compensation for future discomfort and loss of amenities of life though her earning capacity is not affected in any manner whatsoever. 12. For pain and suffering, the claimant has been awarded Rs. 20,000/- which, in my view, is slightly on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. 13. The claimant is also entitled to damages for loss of amenities of life and future discomfort because of the stiffness to the elbow. She has also been scarred and being a lady, I assess the damages of this count at Rs. 50,000/-. 30,000/-. 13. The claimant is also entitled to damages for loss of amenities of life and future discomfort because of the stiffness to the elbow. She has also been scarred and being a lady, I assess the damages of this count at Rs. 50,000/-. Even if all this is totalled, it comes to less than what is awarded by the Tribunal. 14. Therefore, I find no reason to enhance the claim. The appeals are rejected accordingly. Send down the lower court records forthwith.