JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Having been dissatisfied with the judgment dated 19-5-2009 awarding a sum of Rs.79,480/- to the appellant as compensation for the injury sustained by him in a vehicular accident, this appeal has been preferred by him for enhancement of the compensation so awarded. 2. Both Mr. P. Majumder, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. Acharji, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (National Insurance Company Limited) are heard at length. 3. The appellant met with a vehicular accident on 18-8-2004 along Manu Bazar-Srinagar road near Manu Bazar PHC due to the rash and negligent driving of the Commander jeep bearing No.TR-03-2705 by its driver. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered multiple injuries on various parts of his body including his head. According to the appellant, soon after the accident, he was taken to Manu Bazar P.H.C. for medical treatment wherefrom he was referred to G.B. Hospital, Agartala for better treatment. As his condition was deteriorating, he was referred to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata on the recommendation of the Standing Medical Board, Government of Tripura for specialized treatment. According to the appellant, he underwent two major surgeries as due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. The appellant, therefore, filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court No.4), West Tripura, Agartala which was registered as T.S. (MAC) No.237 of 2005 claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- . The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1). At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding the compensation as indicated earlier. 4. A number of contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the impugned judgment, which is, however, forcefully defended by both the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle by denying any liability on their part. It is their further contention that no permanent injury of serious nature was sustained by the appellant and the impugned judgment, therefore, does not need any interference from this Court. 5. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as the affidavit-in-chief of the claimant. It is their further contention that no permanent injury of serious nature was sustained by the appellant and the impugned judgment, therefore, does not need any interference from this Court. 5. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as the affidavit-in-chief of the claimant. In the examination-in-chief, the appellant, who examined himself as PW-1, stated that two operations were done on his head while one operation was done on his mouth for fitting artificial upper jaw in his mouth. He also categorically asserted that he was not able to take solid food for the next 6(six) months due to the accident, which also resulted in loss of his original face. He also asserted that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month in the occupation of mason. He has also asserted that he incurred expenses for his treatment to the order of Rs.1,50,000/- . His evidence is sought to be corroborated by the statement of his friend namely, Md. Habibur Rahaman, who was examined as PW-2 in the trial Court. 6. It is interesting to note that the statements made by the appellant in his affidavit-in-chief are not denied or controverted by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the vehicle. However, even if it is a case of non-traverse also, this Court cannot totally accept the self-serving statements of the appellant unless the same are supported by some credible evidence. Nevertheless, in my opinion, considering the fact that he was admittedly working as a mason before the accident, I am inclined to hold that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Also, keeping in mind the multiple injuries suffered by him, which prompted him to undergo operations on three occasions, and in the absence of denial by the respondents to that effect, I am of the view that sum of Rs.21,120/- awarded for the costs of medicines, charge of X-rays, cost of Pathological and blood tests etc., are found to be too less and are, accordingly, enhanced to Rs.41,120/- from Rs.21,120/-. Similarly, when there is evidence of his inability to work for 6(six) months, the award made by the Tribunal for loss of earning up to a period of 4(four) months is also found to be quite inadequate. Thus, the appellant is entitled to loss of earning for another 2(two) months, i.e. Rs.6,000/- x 2 = Rs.12,000/-. Similarly, when there is evidence of his inability to work for 6(six) months, the award made by the Tribunal for loss of earning up to a period of 4(four) months is also found to be quite inadequate. Thus, the appellant is entitled to loss of earning for another 2(two) months, i.e. Rs.6,000/- x 2 = Rs.12,000/-. In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering and another sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities, for which the Tribunal had awarded only Rs.15,000/-. Under the circumstances, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of the compensation under the following counts:- (i) Cost of treatment etc. Rs.20,000/- (ii) Loss of earning Rs.24,000/- (iii) Pain & suffering and Rs.20,000/- (iv) Loss of amenities Rs.35,000/- Total Rs.99,000/- 7. The total amount of compensation payable to the appellant is, therefore, enhanced to Rs.1,78,480/- from Rs.79,480/-. The enhanced amount of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees ninety-nine thousand)only shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 with this Registry within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order for payment to the appellant together with an interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of the claim petition. As and when the amount is deposited, the same shall be released to the appellant after satisfying the usual formalities without further reference to this Court. The impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated above. 8. The appeal is allowed. Transmit the L.C. records forthwith. 9. A copy of this order will be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.