JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended, (the Act, in short) preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 951/2014. By the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (the Claims Tribunal, in short) had awarded an amount of Rs. 10,15,100/- in favour of the appellant-claimant as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. It was further ordered that the awarded amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment and the same was payable by the opposite party No. 1-insurer in MAC Case No. 951/2014, arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the claim application are that on 16.02.2014, at about 2-15 p.m. the appellant-claimant (hereinafter also referred to as the claimant and/or the appellant) along with one of his friends was travelling by a vehicle bearing registration No. AR-04/D-7169 (Mahindra Scorpio) from Chaygaon side to Guwahati. When the said vehicle reached Sapartary, within the territorial jurisdiction of Chaygaon Police Station, it met with an accident and as a result of the accident, the appellant sustained multiple injuries in various parts of his body. The appellant was immediately brought to Guwahati with the assistance of local people and was initially admitted at Nemcare Hospital, Guwahati. Finding the condition of the appellant serious, the appellant was shifted to Guwahati Neurological Research Center (GNRC, in short) Hospital on 16.02.2014 itself where he was admitted in the ICU of the Hospital initially. The appellant underwent treatment at GNRC Hospital, Guwahati till 22.03.2014. In connection with the said accident, a police case being Chaygaon Police Station Case No. 89/2014 was registered under sections 279/337/338/427, Indian Penal Code (IPC, in short) against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AR-04/D-7169 (Mahindra Scorpio). The appellant was released from the hospital on 22.03.2014 after prolonged treatment. During the period of his treatment, he had undergone brain operation and he was also operated on his left hand. The appellant was released from the hospital on 22.03.2014 after prolonged treatment. During the period of his treatment, he had undergone brain operation and he was also operated on his left hand. It was on 21.05.2014, the appellant as the claimant had filed a claim application under section 166 of the Act before the Claims Tribunal seeking an amount of Rs. 47,10,000/- as compensation under various heads for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 16.02.2014 contending, inter-alia, that because of the injuries he had become permanently disabled and the same had resulted due to the act of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio). The said claim application was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 951/2014. 3. The insurer, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio) were impleaded as the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the claim application. On institution of MAC Case No. 951/2014, notices were issued to the said opposite parties. On receipt of notice, the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the insurer of the vehicle (hereinafter also referred to as the insurer and/or the respondent No. 1) appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. The opposite party No. 3 i.e. the driver of the vehicle also appeared and filed written statement. In the written statements, the opposite parties had raised all kinds of contentions opposing the prayer made in the claim application. The Claims Tribunal had observed that the notice was also served on the owner of the vehicle i.e. opposite party No. 2. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed 2 (two) issues as under: (1) Whether claimant/injured Md. Rahimuddin Hussain sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 16.02.2014 involving the vehicle bearing registration No. AR-04/D-7169 (Scorpio) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? (2) Whether the claimant(s) are entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? 4. In the course of proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, 3 (three) witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. (2) Whether the claimant(s) are entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? 4. In the course of proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, 3 (three) witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. It was after appreciation of evidence brought on record and upon perusal of the written arguments submitted by the parties, the Claims Tribunal by the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015 had assessed the compensation at Rs. 10,15,100/- as just and appropriate to be paid to the appellant as claimant. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the said assessment of compensation and terming the same as inadequate, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 5. I have heard the submissions of Mr. Haren Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raju Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-insurer, Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited. The materials brought on record by way of evidence before the Claims Tribunal are also perused for the purpose of appreciation of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Claims Tribunal had erred in making assessment of the compensation due to the claimant who is the appellant herein, despite evidence led by him in respect of his disablement as well as the expenses incurred by him towards his medical treatment. He has submitted that the appellant had undergone a major neuro operation on 07.03.2014 at GNRC Hospital, Guwahati and he was in the ICU of the Hospital from 16.02.2014 to 17.03.2014. It was only on 18.03.2014, the appellant was shifted to a cabin and finally on 22.03.2014, he was discharged. Because of the disablement suffered by the appellant due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he had lost his job as a manager at M/s. Ramdhenu Construction. He had also undergone a major operation on his left hand on 26.02.2014 at the same hospital, whereby, a plate was placed at his hand. It is submitted that though a much higher expenditure was incurred during the treatment of the appellant, all the documents evidencing such expenditure could not be produced by him as during that time, he was not in a position to keep appropriate records in his custody and possession. It is submitted that though a much higher expenditure was incurred during the treatment of the appellant, all the documents evidencing such expenditure could not be produced by him as during that time, he was not in a position to keep appropriate records in his custody and possession. He has submitted that after the accident, the appellant is not in a position to walk properly and due to the accident, he has also lost his memory power. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-insurer countering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that from the evidence on record, it could not be inferred and deduced that the appellant has suffered any kind of permanent physical disablement. He has further submitted that in so far as the expenses towards medical treatment of the appellant are concerned, whatever documentary evidence that had been submitted before the Claims Tribunal can only be taken into consideration and any estimation for other amounts, claimed to have been incurred by the appellant, under that head cannot be made on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He has further submitted that if the Claims Tribunal had awarded a lesser amount towards medical expenditure then that could be found out from the documents produced before the Claims Tribunal which are available before this Court, then this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, can very well examine the same and ascertain and decide the same accordingly. 8. In view of the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the evidence which are available on record are to be examined and appreciated. 9. The appellant-claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and had submitted his evidence in the form of affidavit. He, in his evidence, had reiterated the facts about occurrence of the accident, as have already been mentioned hereinabove. He deposed that the offending vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio) hit a tree as the driver lost control of the vehicle and had turned turtle. At the time of the accident, the appellant was sitting in the rear seat and because of the accident, he sustained serious injuries all over his body and became unconscious immediately. He regained his sense only in the ICU of GNRC Hospital. He further deposed that an amount of Rs. At the time of the accident, the appellant was sitting in the rear seat and because of the accident, he sustained serious injuries all over his body and became unconscious immediately. He regained his sense only in the ICU of GNRC Hospital. He further deposed that an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was spent for his treatment which the family had to meet by borrowing from the relatives and other persons. He further stated that he was working as a Manager at a construction firm, M/s. Ramdhenu Construction, 6th Mile, Guwahati prior to his accident and he was drawing an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as his salary. As after the accident, he was not in a position to walk properly and had lost his memory power, he stated, on his date of deposition on 30.05.2015, that he was unable to walk and had been sitting idle at home without work. He categorically stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio). He stated that he was under continuous advice of the doctors of GNRC Hospital which he had to visit from time to time. He exhibited 2 (two) documents, Ext.-1 - Birth Certificate and Ext.-2 - Salary Certificate issued by M/s. Ramdhenu Construction. 10. P.W. 2., Md. Saidul Hussain, in his evidence, stated that on 16.02.2014, he received information about the accident of the appellant. He along with few other persons rushed to the place of the accident and brought the appellant in a serious condition to Nemcare Hospital initially. On the advice of the doctors, the appellant was to be shifted to GNRC Hospital, Guwahati on the same day and the appellant was admitted at GNRC Hospital in the ICU. He also reiterated that the appellant had to undergo a major neuro-operation on 17.03.2014 at GNRC Hospital. On 22.03.2014, the appellant was discharged with advise for future treatment and bed-rest. During the treatment at GNRC Hospital, the appellant had also undergone an operation of his left hand whereby a plate was placed in his hand. P.W. 2 stated that he was involved in the treatment of the appellant as there was no person from the family of the appellant to attend him in respect of the treatment. He projected that an amount of Rs. P.W. 2 stated that he was involved in the treatment of the appellant as there was no person from the family of the appellant to attend him in respect of the treatment. He projected that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was incurred in connection with the medical treatment of the appellant but only bills amounting to Rs. 9,57,997.99/- as regards the expenses incurred at GNRC Hospital and Rs. 8,539/- as regards expenses incurred at Nemcare Hospital, Guwahati could be submitted. The documents pertaining to the balance amount and other miscellaneous expenses could not be retained and in some cases, could not be obtained. P.W. 2 also stated that the appellant used to serve as Manager in a construction firm earning an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as his salary. In his examination-in-chief, he exhibited 17 (seventeen) number of documents in support of the claim of the appellant and in his re-examination, exhibited Ext.-18 : Discharge Certificate dated 22.03.2014 issued by GNRC Hospital. 11. P.W. 3, Md. Noorshad Hussain appeared and deposed as the proprietor of M/s. Ramdhenu Construction, 6th Mile, Guwahati. Exhibiting his signature in Ext.-2 : Salary Certificate, he stated that the appellant was working under him as a Manager and was looking after the work of construction with which the firm was involved. He stated that the appellant was paid a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month besides other allowances. He further stated that the appellant was unable to work after the accident and the appellant was released from his service. 12. It transpires that none of these witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party-insurer. Based on the aforesaid oral evidence and documents submitted before the Claims Tribunal, the Claims Tribunal decided the first issue in the affirmative in favour of the claimant, meaning thereby, the Claims Tribunal had reached the finding that the appellant sustained injuries in an accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No. AR-04/D-7169 (Scorpio) and the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said vehicle. None of the opposite parties including the insurer of the vehicle had challenged the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. None of the opposite parties including the insurer of the vehicle had challenged the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. Since during the submissions made by the parties before this Court also, none of the parties has assailed finding of the Claims Tribunal, it appears to be not necessary for this Court to revisit and discuss the evidence led in that regard as the same has attained finality. Since the issue regarding assessment of compensation is the bone of contention in the instant appeal, it is to be seen whether the Claims Tribunal had correctly assessed the amount of compensation or there is requirement of enhancement of the compensation, as has been contended on behalf of the appellant. 13. The Supreme Court in Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 , has laid down the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of medical evidence in injury cases and also about the manner in which permanent disability viz-a-viz loss of future earning are to be determined. The heads under which the compensation is to be awarded in personal injury cases have also been indicated therein. The relevant excerpts are stated herein: "5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 , R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 , and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 ). 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the to lowing: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future 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), (i)(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), (iii), (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. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - Item (iii) - depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - Items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - Items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - Item (i)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability 8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produces show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal, will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)" 14. It is further observed that ascertainment of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves 3 (three) steps. The Claims Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on inspite of the permanent disability and not what he cannot do as a result of the permanent disability (This is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his vocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third subject is to find out: (i) whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood. (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities, but could carry on some lesser activities and continue to earn his livelihood. It is further highlighted that permanent disability is to be expressed by the doctors. Where the claimant has a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would have been upon the fact and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. It is further highlighted that permanent disability is to be expressed by the doctors. Where the claimant has a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would have been upon the fact and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Claims Tribunal should not mechanically apply and equate extent of permanent disability with loss of earning capacity. If the Claims Tribunal does not find any permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. 15. When the evidence on record is perused, it is found that no doctor was examined on behalf of the appellant to substantiate any claim of permanent disablement and no disability certificate was submitted before the Claims Tribunal. In such situation, there was rightly no assessment as regards loss of future earning by the Claims Tribunal. In such situation, the compensation could be awarded only under the heads: Firstly, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure, Secondly, loss of earnings which the injured would have made had he not been injured during the period of treatment. Thirdly, damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Though there was no medical evidence regarding permanent physical disablement, the instant case is a serious case of injury as there are medical documents corroborating the claim of the claimants as regards the injuries. As such, the grant of compensation can also be considered under the heads of loss of amenities. 16. Apart from the other prescriptions and cash memos available in record, Ext.-11: Digital X-Ray Report of left humerus reflected comminuted displaced fractures mid shaft of left arm and had noted new bone formation. From Ext.-18 : Discharge Certificate issued by GNRC Hospital after his discharge on 22.03.2014, it is seen that the appellant suffered head injury, chest injury and fracture of left humerus. The said Discharge Certificate also revealed that the appellant suffered increase in size of the fronto-temporo-perietal subdural haematoma in the right with increase in mass and midline shift of 12.3 mm. Towards the left there was multiple depressed rib fractures in left with underlying pneumothorax and lung contusion. Ext.-18 further indicated that the appellant was advised rest for 6 (six) weeks and also advised review after 6 (six) weeks. Towards the left there was multiple depressed rib fractures in left with underlying pneumothorax and lung contusion. Ext.-18 further indicated that the appellant was advised rest for 6 (six) weeks and also advised review after 6 (six) weeks. Ext.-12 is an examination report on CT scan brain. From the aforesaid documents, it can very well be seen that the appellant suffered certain serious injuries on his head, chest and left hand. None of the said documents has, however, indicated that the appellant had suffered any kind of permanent disablement on his person. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellant that because of the injuries sustained in the head, there is loss of memory by the appellant but there is no medical evidence led on that point by the appellant. In such situation, the said submission as regards loss of memory is not acceptable and the same is to be kept outside the purview of the instant appeal since in the absence of any expert evidence of doctors in that regard it is not possible for the Court to reach a finding about any kind of disability in that respect. 17. The Claims Tribunal had accepted the salary of the appellant at Rs. 15,000/- per month on the basis of Ext.-2 : Salary Certificate produced by the appellant and the evidence adduced to that effect by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, in the absence of any cross-examination by the insurer in that regard. By considering the fact that the appellant was under treatment from 16.02.2014 to 22.03.2014 and was advised rest for 6 (six) weeks thereafter, the Claims Tribunal had considered the loss of income for the period of 3 (three) months and, accordingly, calculated the loss of earning for the said 3 (three) months at Rs. 45,000/-. As has been mentioned above, there was no evidence regarding permanent disability and the Claims Tribunal had rightly not determined loss of future earning while assessing the amount of compensation. The Claims Tribunal had observed that from the documents placed before the Claims Tribunal an amount of Rs. 8,67,091/- Rs. 8,60,100/- was found to have been incurred in respect of the medical treatment of the appellant. The Claims Tribunal had observed that from the documents placed before the Claims Tribunal an amount of Rs. 8,67,091/- Rs. 8,60,100/- was found to have been incurred in respect of the medical treatment of the appellant. When all the documents regarding medical expenses incurred in respect of medical treatment of the appellant have once again been perused by the learned counsels for the parties, during the course of hearing of the instant appeal, the learned counsels have reached a consensus that the documents are available to the extent of Rs. 10,03,680/- in respect of expenses incurred towards medical treatment of the appellant. In such situation, the Claims Tribunal had either erred or miscalculated the amount of expenses incurred in respect of the medical treatment of the appellant. Since documentary evidence to the extent of Rs. 10,03,686/- in respect of the expenses towards medical treatment of the appellant are available and produced before the Claims Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to the said amount of Rs. 10,03,686/-. The Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses. As has been mentioned above, the appellant has undergone treatment for a sufficient period of time after sustaining serious injuries, the said amount towards miscellaneous expenditures appears to be on the lower side. In Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), it is observed that in routine injury cases, compensation would be awarded towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditures. As the appellant appears to have had undergone treatment in the ICU from 16.02.2014 to 17.03.2014, he must have been attended by other attendants and his treatment had to be taken care of by others. Even if there is no cogent evidence as regards future discomfort likely to be suffered by the appellant but considering the injuries he suffered in the accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, there is likelihood of him suffering discomfort in life and he might have to suffer loss of amenities of life to a certain extent. In such view of the matter, amounts of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 25,000/- under those heads appear to be reasonable. In respect of pain and suffering is concerned, there may not be any interference as the Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- which appears to be reasonable. 18. In such view of the matter, amounts of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 25,000/- under those heads appear to be reasonable. In respect of pain and suffering is concerned, there may not be any interference as the Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 80,000/- which appears to be reasonable. 18. In view of the observations so made, the appellant is entitled to a total amount of compensation of Rs. 12,28,686/-. In such view of the matter, the enhancement amount of Rs. 2,13,586/- is to be paid by the respondent No. 1-insurer along with interest @7.5% from the date of the claim application i.e. 21.05.2014 till payment. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the parties that the respondent No. 1-insurer had already deposited the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal by the judgment and award dated 31.07.2015 and the same was also disbursed to the appellant-claimant in the year 2015. 19. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is partly allowed. The respondent No. 1-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of the claim application i.e. 21.05.2014, till the date of deposit before the Registry of this Court within a period of 2 (two) months from today. On such deposit, the Registry will disburse the said amount in favour of the appellant-claimant on his due identification by his learned counsel. After such disbursal the records are to be returned. No order as to costs.