JUDGMENT : N.K. Patil, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 5th April 2010, passed in MVC No. 978/2008, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, (for short, 'Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs.53,200/-, awarded in his favour as against his claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-, is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 57 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That the occurrence of accident of the appellant at about 10:00 p.m, on 27-07-2008, when the appellant was riding the Motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-20/R-540, near Thekalthota, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No. KA-25/B-2647, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and was taken to KMC Hospital, Manipal and treated as in-patient from 27-07-2008 to 05-08-2008 and once again he was re-admitted to Hospital from 10-08-2008 till 14-08-2008 and 05-09-2008 to 09-09-2008. 2. It is his further case that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he has undergone severe pain and agony and for the treatment of the said injuries, he has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, he has to be compensated reasonably. 3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 5th April, 2010. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 53,200/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Insurer. 5. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Insurer. 5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, disability, etc. on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. To substantiate the same, he pointed out that the on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the appellant took treatment in the Hospital on many occasions for quite a long period and also spent huge amount towards medical expenses and other incidental expenses, but the Tribunal has failed to consider all these aspect, while awarding compensation. Therefore, he vehemently submitted the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is liable to be modified, awarding just and reasonable compensation on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for second respondent/Insurer sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and after passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and the compensation awarded by Tribunal under various heads is also considering the age, avocation, year of accident, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, etc. Hence, interference is unwarranted. 7. After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it can be seen that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation. Admittedly, due to the road traffic accident, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries, viz. incised wound over forehead 4 x 3 cm. incised wound over frontoral region 6 x 4 cm, fracture zygomaxillary complex right side, left scaphoid fracture and head. He was in patient on several occasions at Hitech Medicare Hospital, Ambalpady, Udupi and later at K.M.C. Hospital. During the treatment and follow-up period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges. The appellant has not sustained any permanent disability. He has sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. He was in patient on several occasions at Hitech Medicare Hospital, Ambalpady, Udupi and later at K.M.C. Hospital. During the treatment and follow-up period, he would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges. The appellant has not sustained any permanent disability. He has sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The appellant being aged about 57 years, has to endure the discomforts and unhappiness for the rest of his life and it would be difficult for him to perform his day to day activities, as earlier. Considering the nature of injuries sustained age and avocation of the appellant, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, age, avocation of the appellant and nature and duration of treatment, and other relevant material available on file and also the fact that he cannot to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier, I deem it fit to award a global compensation of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, with interest at 8% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 5th April, 2010, passed in MVC No. 978/2008, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi, is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, with interest at 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The second respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, with interest thereon at 8% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly. Shri. C.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of second respondent, within four weeks from today.