JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 1st September, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No. 06-S/2 of 2008, titled Bhima Gupta vs. Bhim Singh and another, whereby the claim petition was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, was awarded in favour of the claimant and respondents No.1 & 2 were saddled with the liability, jointly and severally, (for short, the impugned award). 2. Respondents No.1 i.e. owner of the offending scooter and respondent No.2 i.e. the person who was driving the scooter at the time of accident, have not challenged the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. Even before this Court, despite service, the said respondents chose not to appear, thus, are proceeded against ex parte. 3. Facts of the case, as pleaded by the claimant/appellant in the claim petition, in brief, are that on 12th February, 2007, at about 3.00 p.m., when the claimant was going to her house, respondent No.2 while driving Scooter No.HP-11-2144 rashly and negligently, lost control over it and hit the claimant, as a result of which she sustained injuries, was taken to Primary Health Centre, Darlaghat, from where she was referred to Zonal Hospital, Solan, where she remained admitted for three days. Thus, the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 resisted the claim petition by filing separate replies. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to settled by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner has received injuries on account of accident caused due to rash/negligent driving of respondent No.2? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was herself negligent? OPR 4. Relief.” 6. In order to prove her case, the claimant examined PW-1 Dr. Asheesh Sharma and PW-2 Shri Ram Pal, and the claimant herself also stepped into the witness box as PW-3. Respondents No.1 and 2, in support of their contentions, appeared as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. 7. OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was herself negligent? OPR 4. Relief.” 6. In order to prove her case, the claimant examined PW-1 Dr. Asheesh Sharma and PW-2 Shri Ram Pal, and the claimant herself also stepped into the witness box as PW-3. Respondents No.1 and 2, in support of their contentions, appeared as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. 7. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the claimant. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 8. Thus, the only question needs to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side? 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned award. 10. The Tribunal, in paragraph 10 of the impugned award, has categorically recorded that respondents No.1 and 2, while appearing as RW-1 and RW-2, had admitted the accident. The said respondents have not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the same have attained finality qua them. Therefore, the findings returned on issues No.1 and 3 can be said to be not in dispute. However, I have gone through the pleadings and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, and am of the considered view that the driver had driven the offending scooter rashly and negligently and had caused the accident in which the claimant had sustained injuries. Therefore, findings returned on issues No.1 and 3 are upheld. 11. Coming to issue No.2, the amount awarded by the Tribunal appears to be meager for the following reasons. Admittedly, the claimant/appellant, after the accident, was first taken to Primary Health Centre, Darlaghat, and from where, was referred to Zonal Hospital, Solan. The claimant remained admitted there for three days, which fact stands duly proved from a perusal of the discharge slip Ext.PW-1/A. Summary of medical record has also been placed on record and has been marked as Mark X, a perusal whereof does disclose that the claimant had suffered four injuries, including joint dislocation. It has been recorded in the summary that injury No.2 was grievous in nature. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be too meager and needs to be enhanced. 12. It has been recorded in the summary that injury No.2 was grievous in nature. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be too meager and needs to be enhanced. 12. The claimant, during her remaining admitted in the hospital for three days would have spent on medicines and attendant. Apart from it, to reach the Primary Health Centre and thereafter Zonal Hospital, Solan, the claimant would have also spent on transportation. In addition, the claimant would have also spent additionally on special diet for recovery. Thus, by exercising guess work, I deem it proper to award Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering undergone by the claimant and Rs.15,000/- for expenses qua medicines, attendant, special diet transportation etc. Otherwise also, minimum compensation to which a claimant is entitled to as per the mandate of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is Rs.25,000/-. 13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award is modified and a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.15,000/-) is awarded in favour of the claimant, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The appeal is allowed as indicated above and stands disposed of accordingly.