JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The claimant is on appeal challenging the order of the I Add. Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT, Belgaum, dated 02.11.2020 passed in MVC No.2532/2007. 2. The occurrence of the accident and the coverage of the Insurance policy is not in dispute. However, what is in dispute is as regards the driver of the vehicle not having a valid license to drive a truck which was insured by the Insurance Company. Taking the said fact into account, the Tribunal though awaded compensation directed the owner of the vehicle to make payment of the said money, absolving the Insurance company of its liability. It is aggrieved by the above and as also for enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court on appeal. 3. Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo enclosing a copy of the driving license issued to the Driver of the vehicle, a copy of the same has been served on the counsel for the Insurance company. On a previous occasion the counsel for the Insurance company had sought for a short accommodation to verify the authenticity as also the veracity of the said license. 4. Today Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the document now produced is proper and valid and he confirms that the license authorizes the licensee therein to drive the Truck bearing No.MH-09/L-7882. In view of the said submission, though the document now produced would require the matter to be remanded, in view of the submission made by Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the license is proper and valid, I am of the opinion that instead of remanding, this Court could dispose of the matter by taking the said document on record. 5. In view of the submission made by Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri that the license is valid, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of the Tribunal imposing the liability on the owner of the vehicle absolving the Insurance Company is required to be set aside and as such the finding is set aside. 6. Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meager, insufficient, contrary to applicable guidelines. 6. Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are meager, insufficient, contrary to applicable guidelines. The compensation awarded under the different heads of account does not take into account the gravity and severity of the injuries suffered by the appellant. The appellant is therefore entitled to for higher compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company contends that what has been awarded by the Tribunal is proper and correct. All the aspects that are required to be considered have been so considered by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded as compensation is more than sufficient and there are no further amounts which are required to be awarded and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company, Sri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for respondent No.1. and perused the papers. 9. The Tribunal as awarded a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- under the following heads: Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.55,000/- 3 Conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges Rs.3,000/- 4 Loss of earnings during treatment Rs.25,000/- 5 Loss of amenity Rs.25,000/- Total Rs.1,33,000/- 10. The claimant was aged about 51 years and serving as Assistant Agricultural Officer in the Hamidwala Sugar Factory at the time of this accident. On account of the accident he suffered from fracture of middle condyle of femur, fracture of lateral condyle of femur and fracture of right supra condylor femur and treated as inpatient at Hattarki Hospital from 31.07.2006 to 05.08.2006 and later taken treatment at Siddivinayak Hosptial. 11. Since the claimant continued in service with the Sugar Factory, where he was working, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any compensation towards the loss of future earning. 12. Pain AND SUFFERINGS: The appellant has suffered three fractures i.e. fracture of lateral condyle of femur, fracture of lateral condyle of femur and fracture of right supra condylor femur and was laid-up for a period of 90 days. Hence, I am of the considered view that the appellant has suffered considerable pain during these days and as such, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded is insufficient. The same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- on this head of account. 13. Hence, I am of the considered view that the appellant has suffered considerable pain during these days and as such, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded is insufficient. The same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- on this head of account. 13. Conveyance, ATTENDANT CHARGES, NUTRITION AND OTHER INCIDENTAL CHARGES: The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges. Since the appellant has suffered grievous injury and he has taken treatment in the hospital as an inpatient for 6 days, operated and laid up for 90 days, the amount awarded under the said head is on the lower side. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.30,000/- has to be awarded on this head. 14. Loss OF AMENITIES: Towards the loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. As the appellant has lost out on the aspects of a normal life due to the injury sustained, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- 15. Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this Court is under: Sl. N o Heads of account Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Enhanced compensatio n 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.25,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.55,000/- Rs.55,000/- 0 3 Conveyance, attendant charges, nutrition and other incidental charges Rs.3,000/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.27,000/- 4 Loss of earnings during treatment Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- 0 5 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.25,000 Total Rs.1,33,000/- Rs.2,10,000/- Rs.77,000/- 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment and award passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Belgaum, in MVC No.2532/2007 dated 02.11.2010 is hereby modified. The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.77,000/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. iii. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the enhanced compensation.