JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. K. Phukan, learned State Counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 14-12-2012 passed by the MACT(FTC), Dibrugarh in MAC Case No. 31/2008. 3. One Biren Agarwala sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident on 14-01-2007, involving the vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01-K/0029, owned by the respondent No. 3. Having sustained injury, the claimant filed a claim petition praying for compensation before the tribunal and the learned tribunal by the impugned judgment, awarded a compensation of Rs. 39,460/-, which comprised of Rs. 29,460/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance etc and Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and agony. 4. Unsatisfied with the above award, the claimant preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Chetia submits, that due to the accident, the claimant suffered a lot, as he had to take further treatment in various hospitals and was not able to pursue his work and all these aspects were not considered by the learned tribunal. Further contention of Mr. Chetia is that the compensation awarded on account of non-pecuniary heads were extremely meagre and urged for enhancement. 6. The factum of the claimant, having sustained injury in the accident involving the offending vehicle was not in dispute. In support of the injury, the claimant proved Ex. 2 discharge certificate showing, that he sustained scalp injury and was treated in a hospital for eight days. Though, the claimant stated in his oral testimony, that he was rendered incapable to earn his livelihood, because of the injury, no evidence was adduced to show that the claimant sustained any grievous injury or he suffered permanent disablement. In absence of any evidence regarding permanent disablement, the learned tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 29,460/- on account of medical expenses incurred by the claimant and also an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance etc. The tribunal also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as general damages for pain, shock and suffering. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Chetia, placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Mishra-VS-P. Muniam Babu And Ors reported in (1999) 4 SCC 22 submits, that the compensation awarded on account of general damages was extremely meagre and required to be enhanced. 8. 5,000/- as general damages for pain, shock and suffering. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Chetia, placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Mishra-VS-P. Muniam Babu And Ors reported in (1999) 4 SCC 22 submits, that the compensation awarded on account of general damages was extremely meagre and required to be enhanced. 8. From the facts of the case it appears, that injury sustained by the claimant in Ashwani Kumar Mishra’s case was grievous, resulting in permanent disability, and as such, ratio of the said decision is of no help to the claimant in the present case, inasmuch as, the claimant in the present case did not sustain any permanent physical disability. In a recent decision in Raj Kumar–VS-Ajay Kumarand Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 ,the Apex Court clearly laid down the guidelines for granting compensation in case of personal injury, both grievous injury (resulting in physical disability) and non-grievous injury. In para 6 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as under : “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury case are as follows : Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) 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). 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. 9. Since there was no permanent disablement and loss of earning, the compensation in the instant case, as per the guidelines of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar’ case, should be awarded on the two counts- (i) special damages for medical expenses and other expenses incidental thereto and (ii) general damages for pain and suffering. Special damages is to be ascertained on the basis of the actual expenses incurred. Learned tribunal, in addition to the medical expenses of Rs. 29,960/-, additionally granted Rs. 5,000/-, considering the fact that the claimant was in hospital for about eight days. Therefore, there is no scope for further enhancement on account of special damages. However, having considered the fact, that the claimant was in hospital for about eight days and he had to suffer for the injury, I am of the view, that some enhancement is required on account of general damages. In the instant case, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of general damages would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the award is enhanced by Rs. 20,000/-. 10. The respondents shall pay an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant within six weeks from this day of judgment. 11. The appeal stands allowed. 12. Send back the LCR.