JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.02.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby for the injuries suffered by the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 94,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 04.01.1996. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 4,90,000/- for the injuries suffered by him and the permanent disablement as a consequence of such injuries. 3. It was claimed that the claimant was involved in the business of selling vegetables and used to earn Rs. 100-150 per day and on account of injuries suffered by him whereby he had suffered fractures in both the legs, he had to undergo treatment at Ahmedabad, wherein rods have been placed in both the feet after operation and that post his surgery, he has taken a long time in recovery and based on the said averments, compensation was sought. 4. The application was opposed by the non-claimants, wherein the Insurance Company filed its reply and disputed the claim. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards simple injuries, Rs. 30,000/- towards grievous injuries, Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards physical pain and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of future income and Rs. 25,000/- on account of permanent disablement. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant and that the Tribunal has indulged in granting lump sum compensation without calculating the actual loss suffered by the appellant and, therefore, the compensation deserves to be enhanced adequately. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award impugned. It was submitted that just compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and the same does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffered injuries on account of the accident and remained hospitalised at Ahmedabad, wherein he underwent surgery and thereafter, remained confined to bed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffered injuries on account of the accident and remained hospitalised at Ahmedabad, wherein he underwent surgery and thereafter, remained confined to bed. In his statement before the Tribunal, the claimant claimed that on account of the head injury suffered by him, there was loss of memory. It was further claimed that for about three years he was not able to undertake any work and for about last 7-8 months he has started doing work. In the cross-examination, the appellant stated that he stayed at home for three years for which there was no medical advise, now he can remember things. 10. A perusal of the injury report of the appellant indicates that the appellant suffered injuries on the feet only, wherein there was lacerated wound on the left thigh, swelling on the right thigh, abrasion on the right knee and bleeding from the left toe and the medical report did not indicate any head injury. 11. So far as the fact that the appellant remained hospitalised and underwent surgery, the same is not in dispute, inasmuch as, the same is supported by large number of documents, which have been filed as Ex.1 to Ex.134. 12. The Tribunal has awarded compensation based on the nature of injuries and calculating the medical expenses based on the material available on record. 13. So far as the quantum of physical pain and loss of income is concerned, the quantum of physical pain cannot be measured and the fact that the appellant remained hospitalised and underwent surgery, the award of Rs. 5,000/- assessed by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side looking to the nature of work being done by the appellant and the injuries suffered by him and, therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards the hospitalisation of the appellant and the conveyance expenses, which must have been incurred for undertaking treatment at Ahmedabad and further no amount has been awarded towards nutritious diet, which the appellant was required to take during the course of his treatment. 5,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. 14. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards the hospitalisation of the appellant and the conveyance expenses, which must have been incurred for undertaking treatment at Ahmedabad and further no amount has been awarded towards nutritious diet, which the appellant was required to take during the course of his treatment. Under the said three heads i.e. hospitalisation, conveyance and nutritious diet, the appellant is entitled to a further compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. 15. In view of the above, the appellant would be entitled to a further compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, on the said amount of compensation, the appellant would also be entitled to interest @ 7% from the date of application i.e. 04.01.1996. 16. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 7% from the date of application i.e. 04.01.1996. 17. The compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 1,44,000/-. The rate of interest on the amount awarded by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. The amount of compensation be paid in the saving bank account of the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment.