JUDGMENT : Shircy.V., J. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant/appellant, this appeal has been preferred by him against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV) No.827/2006. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: On 12.12.2005 at about 5 p.m., the 1st respondent riding a motor cycle bearing No. KL 18A-6766 through public road near Kakkattil Ajantha Talkies. The appellant was travelling as pillion rider. Then the 1st respondent came in another motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit on their motor cycle. As a result the appellant/claimant fell down on the road and the front wheel of a bus bearing No.KL-13/J- 6309 came from Kuttiadi ran over through the appellant's right leg and thereby caused grievous crush injuries to him. He was immediately rushed to the Medical College Hospital and he had undergone treatment there and thereafter in the Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. He has claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The accident as well as the insurance policy are not in dispute. So also the finding regarding the negligence of the 1st respondent in causing injuries to the appellant is not under challenge in the appeal. So the only question to be considered is whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the appellant who sustained serious injuries in the accident. 3. Ext.A2 is the wound certificate of the appellant. Ext.A4 is the treatment certificate. As revealed from the records, he has sustained crush injury to his right leg and other injuries for which he had to undergo treatment in the Medical College as well in Baby Memorial Hospital. Ext.A6 series and Ext.A7 series are the medical bills pertaining to the expenses met by him for the treatment in the Baby Momorial Hospital. The learned Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs.34,500/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It is to be noted as the appellant had sustained crush injury, he had to remain in the hospital for a considerable period and he had to spent money for the treatment in the Baby Memorial Hospital. So we find that the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is inadequate and unreasonable. 4. The incident was in the year 2005. The claimant was aged only 29 years at the time of the accident. So we find that the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is inadequate and unreasonable. 4. The incident was in the year 2005. The claimant was aged only 29 years at the time of the accident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, he was working as a teacher in a public school at Vattoli and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4560/-. Of course no evidence was adduced to substantiate the averment that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.4560/- at the time of the accident. But it is to be noted that the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income as Rs 3500/- per month and awarded an amount of Rs.3500/- as loss of earnings for one month. As he sustained crush injury no doubt, he had to take rest at least for a period of two months, but the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.3500/- under the head of loss of earning. So on that count he is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.3500/- (3500x2=7000/- minus 3500/-). As compensation under the head transportation to hospital, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.250/- is on the lower side. Hence, it is enhanced to Rs.2000/- which would entitle him to get an amount of Rs.1.250/-. As damages to clothing, the appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.250/-. As extra nourishment, no amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. So an amount of Rs.2000/- is granted under that head. As the expenses for bystanders, no amount has been granted by the Tribunal. As he had sustained crush injury, he had to seek the service of a bystander at least for sometime. So an amount of Rs.6000/- is granted on that count. Under the head pain and sufferings, only an amount of Rs.17,000/- had been awarded. It is definitely on the lower side and we enhance it as Rs.25000/- which would entitle him to get further amount of Rs.8000/-. As loss of amenities, only an amount of Rs.3000/- has been granted. We enhance it as Rs.25000/- which would entitle him to get an amount of Rs.22,000/- on that count. It is pertinent to note that Ext.A7 series are the medical bills produced by him to prove his case that he had to spent a huge amount for his treatment. As loss of amenities, only an amount of Rs.3000/- has been granted. We enhance it as Rs.25000/- which would entitle him to get an amount of Rs.22,000/- on that count. It is pertinent to note that Ext.A7 series are the medical bills produced by him to prove his case that he had to spent a huge amount for his treatment. But the Tribunal had rejected his claim finding that some of the bills are for consumables. We have meticulously gone through each and every bill produced and marked by the appellant before the Tribunal and the total amount is Rs.81,667/-. Of course bills for an amount of Rs.4950/- are for consumables. Deduction for an amount of Rs.3354/- was the given by the hospital authorities to the appellant for his treatment. But the remaining amount of Rs.73,363/- are the actual medical bills pertaining to the treatment undergone by him in the hospital for the injuries sustained by him. Definitely he is entitled to get the amount of Rs.73,363/- as the expenses met by him for the treatment undergone because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence, we find that the appellant is entitled to get a further amount of Rs.1,16,363/- as compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the compensation. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.1,16,363/- (Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand three hundred and sixty three only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount within two months from today.