JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. More, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 7-4-12 passed in MAC Case No. 323/2007 (MAC Case No. 21/2007) by MACT No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati. 3. The claimant Chandan Kumar Das sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on 09-12-2006, involving the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01/A-9141, owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Learned tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,69,400/-, which consisted of Rs. 89,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 2,75,400/- for loss of future earning and Rs. 5,000/- for pain, shock and suffering. 4. Aggrieved by the above award, the claimant preferred the appeal seeking enhancement. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. B.K. Jain for the appellant submits that the claimant was a music teacher by profession and besides getting a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month, he was also earning Rs. 4,000/- from private tuition and the claimant adduced evidence to that effect. However, while determining the future loss of earning, the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the income of the claimant from private tuition and thereby, failed to award a just and reasonable compensation. Further contention of the learned counsel is that the claimant incurred medical expenses for an amount of Rs.1,35,675/-. However, the learned tribunal awarded only Rs. 89,000/- and failed to take into consideration the expenses incurred by the claimant for undergoing operation during pendency of the proceeding, for which additional evidence was adduced. Although from the documentary evidence adduced by the claimant, it appears that the claimant had incurred medical expenses of Rs. 1,35,675/-, the learned tribunal granted a lesser amount without assigning any reason. It is contended by learned counsel that tribunal granted only Rs. 5,000/- for pain, shock and suffering and no amount was granted on account of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Though, the claimant suffered permanent disability, the learned tribunal taking an erroneous view, that compensation on the non-pecuniary heads are to be granted strictly under the provision of Schedule–II of the M.V. Act, granted a very meagre amount and therefore, urged this Court for enhancement of compensation and interest to the extent of 9%. 6. Though, the claimant suffered permanent disability, the learned tribunal taking an erroneous view, that compensation on the non-pecuniary heads are to be granted strictly under the provision of Schedule–II of the M.V. Act, granted a very meagre amount and therefore, urged this Court for enhancement of compensation and interest to the extent of 9%. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co., Mr. M. More submits that the claimant was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-, which was taken into consideration by the tribunal. So far the additional income of Rs. 4,000/- from private tuition is concerned, as there was no convincing evidence, learned tribunal rightly refused to take into account such income from private tuition. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel, that though 45% disability of the claimant was related to the particular limb, and not to the whole body, learned tribunal, without properly assessing the impact of such disability on the earning capacity, mechanically awarded 45% loss of earning, which was on the higher side, and therefore, no enhancement with regard to loss of income is called for. 7. As to the medical expenses, the contention of the appellant is that initially the claimant incurred expenses of Rs. 95,896/- for medical treatment and after adducing evidence, the claimant had to undergo another operation for removal of nails, for which, he had to spend Rs.39,780/- and the said amount was not taken into consideration by the learned tribunal. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. contends, that the evidence of medical expenses with regard to the operation for removing nails, also included medical vouchers/bills for an amount of Rs. 12,000/-, which did not relate to operation, and as such, required to be rejected. Even if the bill of Rs. 12,000/- is discarded, then also claimant was entitled to Rs. 27,780/- for the subsequent operation for removal of nails. This amount was also not taken into consideration by the learned tribunal. Since evidently, the claimant spent the said amount, in my considered view, the claimant was certainly entitled to the entire amount spent for medical expenses as special damages. It is contended by Mr. Jain, that the claimant had to be hospitalized thrice for undergoing operation and incurred a huge incidental expenses towards transportation, special foods, attendants, etc., but the learned tribunal did not take into consideration such expenses while determining the compensation. The submission of Mr. It is contended by Mr. Jain, that the claimant had to be hospitalized thrice for undergoing operation and incurred a huge incidental expenses towards transportation, special foods, attendants, etc., but the learned tribunal did not take into consideration such expenses while determining the compensation. The submission of Mr. Jain appears to be pre-ponderous, inasmuch as, when a person having sustained grievous injury was hospitalized for a long time and was operated thrice, he certainly spent some amount for transportation, special foods, attendants, etc., which were incidental to the treatment and the learned tribunal, in my considered view, ought to have awarded some amount for such incidental expenses, though, no documentary evidence could be adduced for such incidental expenses. 8. Having regard to the nature of injury and the disability of the claimant and the period of hospitalization, etc., it is not difficult to comprehend that the claimant incurred a considerable amount for expenses incidental to the medical treatment. Since no documentary evidence was adduced for the incidental expenses, I am of the view that at least Rs. 30,000/-should be awarded for expenses incidental to the medical treatment. Evidently the claimant sustained permanent disablement to the extent of 45%. The Apex Court, in Raj Kumar –VS-Ajay Kumar and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 succinctly laid down the guidelines for granting compensation in case of personal injury as under :- “6. the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury case are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (ii) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the inured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : a. Loss of earning during the period of treatment ; b. Loss of earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (ii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 9. As per the above principle, in case of permanent disablement, besides the medical expenses and the expenses incidental thereto for transportation, nourishing food, miscellaneous expenses etc., the claimant is also entitled to the future loss of earning for the injury as well as loss of earning during treatment, general damages for pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. In the instant case, though the claimant sustained permanent disability, no amount was granted by the tribunal for loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. A paltry amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded by the tribunal for pain, shock and suffering, under an erroneous impression that, the tribunal was bound to follow the Schedule-II of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation, though, the claim was u/s 166 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, having considered the nature of injury, the amount granted by the learned tribunal on account of pain, shock and suffering is required to be enhanced. Besides, such enhancement, the claimant is also entitled to some amount under the heads of loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life as per the guidelines in Raj Kumar’s case. 10. So far the income is concerned, the claimant adduced evidence, that he was a music teacher and used to get salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and he also earned Rs. 4,000/- from private tuition. However, the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the income of the claimant from the tuition and considered the income from salary only. 10. So far the income is concerned, the claimant adduced evidence, that he was a music teacher and used to get salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and he also earned Rs. 4,000/- from private tuition. However, the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the income of the claimant from the tuition and considered the income from salary only. What is evident is that though physical disability of the claimant was assessed as 45%, the learned tribunal, apparently, without applying its mind and considering the impact of the disability on the earning capacity, mechanically granted the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 45% corresponding to 45% physical disability of the lower limb. The apex court in Rajkumar’s case, observed that when the claimant suffers permanent disability as a result of injury, the assessment of compensation under the head ‘’loss of future earning’’ would depend upon the affect and impact of permanent disability on his earning capacity. Therefore, the tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of physical disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. 11. Though permanent disability was of a particular limb and not of whole body, the learned tribunal, apparently, failed to assess the loss of earning capacity due to impact of the injury and mechanically applied the percentage of physical disability of particular limb as the percentage of loss of earning capacity and thereby awarded a higher amount on account of loss of earning. Therefore, even if the additional income was not taken into consideration, I am of the considered view, that having regard to the necessity of granting a just and reasonable compensation, no further enhancement is required under the head “loss of earning”. So far the compensation in respect of general damages for pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life are concerned, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/-each on these three counts. Having considered, that the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the additional medical expenses incurred and the un-controvered documentary evidence adduced by the claimant regarding medical expenses, the claimant is held to be entitled to total medical expenses of Rs. 1,23,675/-(Rs. 95,895/- + Rs. 27,780/-). 50,000/-each on these three counts. Having considered, that the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the additional medical expenses incurred and the un-controvered documentary evidence adduced by the claimant regarding medical expenses, the claimant is held to be entitled to total medical expenses of Rs. 1,23,675/-(Rs. 95,895/- + Rs. 27,780/-). The interest granted by the tribunal is also enhanced from 6% to 9% following the decision of the Apex Court in Narendra Singh -VS- Nishant Sharam reported in (2015) 14 SCC 353. 12. With the enhancement, as indicated above, the enhanced compensation, to which the claimant shall be entitled is re-assessed as under : Loss of Earning = Rs. 3000/- -- 45% Rs. 1350/- X12X17 Rs. 2,75,400/- Medical Expenses Rs. 1,23,675/- Pain, Shock & Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Loss of Amenities of Life Rs. 50,000/- Loss of Expectation Rs. 50,000/- Incidental Expenses for Medical Treatment Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs. 5,79,075/- (Say Rs. 5,79,000/-) 13. The insurance co. shall satisfy the above award of Rs. 5,79,000/-with interest, as indicated above, by depositing the same with the tribunal within six weeks. Amount, if any, paid in the meantime, shall be adjusted. The tribunal shall ensure that 50% of the award is fixed deposited in the name of the claimant for one year. 14. Appeal stands allowed accordingly. 15. Send back the LCR.