JUDGMENT & ORDER : BUDI HABUNG, J. Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S.Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 20.05.2016, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 293/2014, whereby the learned Tribunal, while holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-14D-3229 by respondent No. 2, awarded only a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the present appellant/claimant. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal is that the appellant/claimant was a pillion rider of the said motorcycle at the time of the accident, and respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 was the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-14D-3229. The accident occurred due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2. Immediately after the accident, an FIR was lodged, and the matter was investigated and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the motor cycle and indicating the involvement of the said motorcycle. 4. The respondents contested the case and filed a written statement; however, they did not adduce any evidence to rebut the claimant’s case. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2. The said finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged and, thus, stands affirmed. 5. The contention of the appellant/claimant is that, after the accident, he had underwent treatment at GNRC Hospital, Guwahati, for about 22 days, thereafter at GMC Hospital, Guwahati, for about 16 days, and subsequently at Dr. N.M.B. Baruah Nursing Home, Nalbari, up to 20.03.2014. It is further contended that he sustained head injuries and multiple fractures of the zygomatic bone and was treated at three different hospitals, incurring considerable amount of money expended for his treatment. In support of his claim, the appellant/claimant exhibited various cash memos. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the appellant/claimant was also a patient of diabetes and hypertension and he was suffering from renal failure for which he had undergone treatment. In support of his claim, the appellant/claimant exhibited various cash memos. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal held that the appellant/claimant was also a patient of diabetes and hypertension and he was suffering from renal failure for which he had undergone treatment. The learned Tribunal also observed that some medical documents related to the treatment of renal failure, diabetes, and hypertensions were not directly attributable to the accident. It was also noted that some cash memos were exhibited twice by the appellant/claimant, and a few did not bear the patient’s name. Furthermore, the doctors who treated the injured claimant were not examined. Considering all the above factors, the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as a lump-sum compensation to the appellant/claimant. 7. Being highly aggrieved, the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submitted that no any amount was granted under different heads, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation and attendant charges, and special diet. 8. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the record, it appears that the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant have been admitted and proved before the learned Tribunal. The claimant was hospitalized for a substantial period immediately after the accident. Although certain medical documents appear to relate to preexisting diseases, this Court is of the view that it must ensure real, just, and reasonable compensation under Section 168 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, has held that compensation should not be merely token but realistic, considering pain, suffering, loss of amenities, and the trauma of prolonged treatment. 10. In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal awarded a nominal sum of Rs. 20,000/- only, despite the undisputed fact of multiple hospital admissions. 11. Further this Court is of the opinion that even without prescribed medical bills, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transportation and attendant charges, special diet, and incidental medical expenses. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires enhancement. Accordingly, the compensation has been reassessed under the following heads, as given below: Compensation calculation Head of compensation Amount 1. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires enhancement. Accordingly, the compensation has been reassessed under the following heads, as given below: Compensation calculation Head of compensation Amount 1. Pain & Suffering Rs. 30,000/- 2. Loss of Amenities /Discomfort Rs. 20,000/- 3. Transportation, attendance charge & Special Diet Rs. 20,000 4. Medical treatment (lump-sum relating to accident injuries) Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs.1,20,000/- 12. The above calculation of compensation amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) is found to be just and reasonable and shall be payable by respondent No. 1/Insurance Company to the appellant/claimant. The enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum as determined by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. 13. Accordingly, respondent No. 1/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, before the learned Tribunal within 60 (sixty) days from today. Upon such deposit, the same shall be released to the claimant/appellant after due verification and identification by the counsel concerned. 14. The appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned award dated 20.05.2016 stands modified from Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only), along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. 15. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. 16. Let the Trial Court Record be sent back immediately.