ORDER : 1. These are two Appeals i.e. M.A.(C) No.113/2015 & M.A.(C) No.178/2015 arising out of the Award dated 22.11.2014 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.121/2022. 2. M.A.(C) No.113/2015 is the Appeal filed by the Claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Whereas, M.A.(C) No.178/2015 is the Appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging quantum of compensation awarded. The owner of the offending vehicle is the Government Department. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2011 when the Claimant Sanjay Sharma (since died) was travelling on his motorcycle Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No.CG04-CU/5727, he was hit by the offending vehicle i.e. a Car bearing Registration No.CG02-A/6300 driven by Respondent Omprakash Thakur and owned by the Respondent State Department. As a result of the said accident, the Claimant Sanjay Sharma received grievous head injuries and went in coma. 4. The aforesaid Claim Case before the Tribunal was filed on behalf of the original Claimant Sanjay Sharma seeking compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, vide the impugned Award has awarded a compensation of Rs.16,61,111/-of which Rs.9,77,111/-has been awarded for the expenses incurred towards the medical treatment undergone by the Claimant and the other amounts of Rs.1,08,000/-and Rs.5,76,000/-were awarded towards the loss of income and future loss of income respectively. 5. The original Claimant Sanjay Sharma had remained in coma for six years i.e. from the date of accident 14.11.2011 till 22.11.2017 when he eventually died remaining in coma for the entire period. Subsequent to his death, his parents have been substituted in the present Appeals. 6. M.A.(C) No.113/2015 has been filed by the Claimants seeking for enhancement of the compensation, on the ground that the income of the Claimant Sanjay Sharma has been quantified by the learned Tribunal on the lower side. Likewise, no compensation has been awarded towards the pain and suffering, the engagement of personal attendant and also for special diet. Similarly, no compensation towards the transportation cost and future medical expenses has been provided. 7. On the other hand, in M.A.(C) No.178/2015, learned Counsel for Respondent Department/Owner of the offending vehicle, assailing the quantum of compensation awarded, has contended that the medical bills assessed by the learned Tribunal has not been properly assessed. Similarly, no compensation towards the transportation cost and future medical expenses has been provided. 7. On the other hand, in M.A.(C) No.178/2015, learned Counsel for Respondent Department/Owner of the offending vehicle, assailing the quantum of compensation awarded, has contended that the medical bills assessed by the learned Tribunal has not been properly assessed. So also the income assessed does not seem to be proper as the Claimant being the owner of a dairy his businesses must have been continued by engaging somebody else to operate it. His further contention is that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim for personal attendance which does not warrant interference at this juncture. 8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the records, dealing with M.A.(C) No.178/2015 i.e. the Appeal filed by the Respondent Department/Owner of the offending vehicle, what is necessary to be appreciated is that there is no material evidence which has been led by the Department to rebut the evidence led by the Claimant. There is no documentary proof or any other material available on record to disbelieve the medical bills raised by the Claimant. 9. Furthermore, considering the fact that since there is no dispute so far as the accident, the offending vehicle involved in the accident belonging to the Department, the criminal case having been lodged for the said accident and the Claimant Sanjay Sharma sustaining grievous injuries in the said accident and also considering the nature of injuries sustained, the grounds raised by the Department in challenging the impugned Award, the Appeal filed by the Respondent Department, i.e., M.A.(C) No.178/2015, does not have any strong force calling for an interference to the impugned Award. M.A.(C) No.178/2015 thus deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 10. So far as the Appeal i.e. M.A.(C) No.113/2015 filed by the Claimant is concerned, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the factual details are not in dispute as regards the accident, the involvement of the offending vehicle owned by the Respondent Department, the Claimant Sanjay Sharma getting injured in the accident etc. It is also not in dispute that as a result of the said accident, the Claimant Sanjay Sharma went into coma and remained in coma for the next six years i.e. from November, 2011 till his death in November, 2017. 11. It is also not in dispute that as a result of the said accident, the Claimant Sanjay Sharma went into coma and remained in coma for the next six years i.e. from November, 2011 till his death in November, 2017. 11. The Claimant had adduced evidence of earning his livelihood by operating dairy business. He had certain cattle. The date of accident being of November, 2011, under the normal circumstances at the relevant point of time, taking a minimum income of an unskilled labour at around Rs.150/-a day, would bring the monthly income at Rs.4500/-. Under the circumstances, the assessment of the monthly income at Rs.3000/-by the learned Tribunal seems to be on the lower side. This Court thus taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, assesses the monthly income of the Claimant at Rs.5000/-, instead of Rs.3000/-as assessed by the Tribunal. 12. There is a finding of fact that during the three years period i.e. from the date of accident till the impugned Award was passed, there was loss of monthly income which was assessed at Rs.3000/-by the learned Tribunal calculating the amount at Rs.1,08,000/-. If under the aforesaid head the monthly income of Rs.5000/-as assessed by this Court, is calculated, the loss of income for the three years would be Rs.1,80,000/-. 13. Likewise, taking into consideration monthly income of the Claimant at Rs.5000/-i.e. Rs.60,000/-yearly, if the future loss of income is assessed applying the multiplier of 16 applied by the learned Tribunal, the said amount would come to Rs.9,60,000/-. 14. It is further necessary to appreciate the fact that the original Claimant in the instant case was in coma, right from the date of accident till the date of the impugned Award and subsequently till his death in November, 2017. Apart from the Claimant who was in coma state, his entire family must have undergone a tremendous pain and suffering for six long years. The learned Tribunal has not assessed any compensation towards the same. This Court therefore for the pain and suffering for six long years that the Claimant survived after the accident, quantifies a lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. 15. Similarly, since the Claimant was in coma for six years, definitely there must have been a personal attendant for taking care of the Claimant. This Court therefore for the pain and suffering for six long years that the Claimant survived after the accident, quantifies a lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. 15. Similarly, since the Claimant was in coma for six years, definitely there must have been a personal attendant for taking care of the Claimant. Accordingly, taking Rs.3000/-as monthly expenses for an attendant for six years, if that amount of Rs.3000/-is calculated the same would come to Rs.2,16,000/-. 16. Further, since for the six long years the Claimant was in coma, taking into consideration the said state of affairs he must have been on a special diet for his sustenance and survival. This Court thus quantifies a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-under the head of special diet. In addition, the Claimant is also entitled for the medical expenses as has been already quantified by the learned Tribunal at Rs.9,77,111/-. 17. Thus, in all, the Claimants shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.27,33,111/- instead of Rs.16,61,111/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. As regards the claim of the Claimants for future medical expenses incurred subsequent to the impugned Award was passed and also for transportation cost, since the Claimants have not been able to adduce any documentary proof towards the said expenses incurred both for the future medical expenses and for the transport cost, the claim raised by the Claimants in this regard under the circumstances stands rejected. 19. In the result:- (i) M.A.(C) No.113/2015 preferred by the Claimants stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The Claimants shall now be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.27,33,111/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall also carry interest at the same rate as has been fixed by the Tribunal, i.e., 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Case till the date of actual payment of compensation; (ii) M.A.(C) No.178/2015 filed by the Department/Owner of the offending vehicle is dismissed. The Department is directed to pay the difference of amount of compensation with the Tribunal at the earliest, preferably within a period of 60 days. (iii) The impugned Award dated 22.11.2014 accordingly stands modified. However, the rest of the conditions stipulated in the Award shall remain intact.