JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S Datta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A.L. Saha, the learned counsel for the insurance company, respondent No.2. 2. Dissatisfied with the award of Rs.2,03,330/- made by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala in his judgment dated 24-7-2012 of Title Suit(M.A.C) No.727/2003, the appeal has been preferred by the claimant appellant for enhancement of the compensation amount so awarded. 3. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. On 08-02-2003, when the appellant was proceeding in a motorcycle as a pillion rider from G. B. Hospital towards Kunjaban through Abhoynagar – G.B. Road, the motor-cycle was hit by one truck bearing registration No. TRL-1023 coming from the opposite direction at Jagatput. As a result, he sustained multiple injuries on his person. He was immediately taken to G.B.P Hospital, Agartala and was admitted there from 08-02-2003 to 24-02-2003. Thereafter he had also gone to Kolkata for better treatment and remained admitted at Health Care Research Centre, Kolkata on 24-2-2003 and got discharged on 04-3-2003. He was thereafter treated by Dr. Arindam Banerjee, Orthopedic Surgeon. By means of surgery, a nail was also inserted in his femur. It is the case of the appellant that he became permanently disabled and lost his profession and could no longer drive any vehicle and lost his total earning capacity. The police also registered East Agartala P.S. Case No.41/2003 dated 11-2-2003 under Sections 279/338 IPC in connection with this accident. According to the appellant, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. The appellant claimed that he was a truck driver by profession and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month at the time of the accident. He, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.23,32,000/-. That petition was contested by owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company by filing their respective statements wherein they deny any liability to pay compensation so claimed. 4. He, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.23,32,000/-. That petition was contested by owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company by filing their respective statements wherein they deny any liability to pay compensation so claimed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: “I. Whether the claimant petitioner sustained any injury and thereby becomes permanently disabled in a vehicular accident occurred on 08-2-2003 at about 06.30 hours at Jagatpur on the way of Abhoynagar – G.B Road under East Agartala P.S due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle NO.TRL-1023(Truck) by its driver. II. Whether the claimant petitioner is entitled to get any compensation due to the said permanent disablement, if so, what would be the quantum of compensation and who shall be held liable for payment of the same. III. What other relief/relieves are the parties entitled to?” 5. To substantiate his case the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and submitted certified copies of the FIR, charge sheet, air tickets, medical bills etc. which were marked as exhibit-1 series. He also submitted his disablement certificate which was marked as exhibit – 2. No oral evidence was adduced by the appellant. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 submitted photocopies of registration certificate, insurance policy, route permit, tax token, fitness certificate of the vehicle which were marked as exhibit-A series. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned award indicated earlier. 6. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The first grievance of the appellant as projected by his counsel is that the appellant being a driver having a valid driving licence was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, and the Tribunal has erroneously held that his earning was only Rs.3,000/- per month. In my opinion, this submission is noted only to be summarily rejected in view of the fact that the appellant in his examination-in-chief has clearly mentioned that he was an assistant of truck driver and not the driver. In that view of the matter, the assessment of the income of the appellant by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month does not appear to be wide of the mark. In that view of the matter, the assessment of the income of the appellant by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month does not appear to be wide of the mark. In so far as the award of Rs.25,000/- made by the Tribunal for pain and suffering suffered by the claimant, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this is on the lower side. The pain and shock undergone by the appellant in that accident could be enormous. In this view of the matter, the award made by the Tribunal for Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering has to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 7. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this appeal is partly allowed. The insurance company(respondent No.2) is, therefore, directed to deposit additional sum of Rs.25,000/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition to the Registry of this Court within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the appellant. Any amount already paid or deposited by the respondent No.2 shall be adjusted accordingly. As and when the awarded 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 and award stands modified only to the extent and in the manner indicated above. 8. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms. Transmit the lower court records forthwith.