JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ. The claimant had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for the grant of compensation, by the medium of claim petition, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, which was granted to him vide judgment and award dated 18.11.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan in Case No. 38 FTC/2 of 05/08, titled Sh. Roop Ram versus HRTC and another, for short ?the Tribunal?, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.86000/- with 6% interest per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award.? 2. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 3. Owner, driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the amount awarded is adequate or otherwise? 5. The amount awarded, on the face of it, is inadequate for the following reasons. 6. The claimant has lost his six teeth in the accident which was caused by Jai Dev while driving the offending vehicle i.e. HRTC bus No. HP-42-0753 and there was dislocation of his jaw also. The loss of jaw, member/joint is permanent disability, in terms of Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ?the Act which reads as under:- ?142. Permanent disablement :- For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving:- (a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or (b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; or (c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face.? 7. Even loss of teeth is grievous hurt in terms of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the claimant has lost vital parts of his body, which cannot be compensated otherwise and dislocation of jaw is also a disfigurement. 7. Even loss of teeth is grievous hurt in terms of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the claimant has lost vital parts of his body, which cannot be compensated otherwise and dislocation of jaw is also a disfigurement. But the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head ?pain and suffering?, has awarded Rs.6000/- for loss of income for one month, Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.60,000/- for disfigurement of the face and Rs.10,000/- for denture. Total to the tune of Rs.86000/- in all. Thus, the claimant is, at least, also entitled to the compensation under the head ?pain and suffering? which he has suffered and also entitled to loss of amenities of life because he is not in a position to chew food. 8. Thus, I deem it proper to award Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering. Total to the tune of Rs.50,000/ with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of impugned award. Ordered accordingly. 9. Having said so, the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced as indicated hereinabove and Cross-Objections are accordingly disposed of. 10. Respondent No. 1 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- within eight weeks from today in the Registry of this Court. In default, the claimant is entitled to the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. 11. The Registry, on deposit of the amount, is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee's cheque account. 12. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.