JUDGMENT : T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. 1. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP No.1248 of 2016, dated 06.02.2023 has preferred this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 13.04.2016 at about 06.45 p.m., when the petitioner was riding his bicycle from west to east near Kannan Departmental store on the Palladam to Trichy Road, a two wheeler bearing Engine No. KC12EEGGA01468 rode by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner from behind. Due to which, the petitioner sustained injuries, for which he underwent treatment in the hospital. Under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 3. The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the 1st respondent. Having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs.2,64,004/- under various heads as follows: S. No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.) 1. Compensation for 15% partial permanent disability 75,000 2. Expenses towards transportation and attender charges 15,000 3. Expenses towards extra nourishment 25,000 4. Damages towards his cloths and articles 5,000 5. Medical bills 1,04,004 6. Pain and suffering and loss of amenities (Rs.25,000 - + Rs.15000) 40,000 Total 2,64,004 4. The above compensation was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 5. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has filed the present appeal before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for appellant would argues that the disability certificate issued by the medical board was not properly considered by the Tribunal and erroneously reduced into 15% when the medical board certified the disability at 55%. To that effect, he has produced the medical certificate. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent would argues that as per the evidence of R.W.2 Doctor, one of the Board Doctor deposed that without following any rules, the disability was assessed. Therefore, the enhancement prayed by the appellant as such is not maintainable. To that effect, he has produced the medical certificate. Hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation. 7. The learned counsel for 2nd respondent would argues that as per the evidence of R.W.2 Doctor, one of the Board Doctor deposed that without following any rules, the disability was assessed. Therefore, the enhancement prayed by the appellant as such is not maintainable. 8. On perusal of award passed by the Tribunal below, the fact reveals that as per the certificate issued by the medical board Ex.C1, the disability was assessed at 55%, in which 30% for ortho disability and 25% for neuro disability. The learned Tribunal held that the petitioner has not produced the medical records to show that he was suffered with neuro disability. Admittedly, he was a driver by profession and he suffered with fracture in the right shoulder. Considering that, this court is inclined to assess the disability at 30% and taking into consideration of date of accident on 13.04.2016, a sum of Rs.7000/- is fixed per percentage. At the time of accident, the claimant was the driver. So, the notional income was fixed for three months. On considering the fact that as the petitioner suffered with fracture on the shoulder and on considering the cost of living, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month. The accident was happened in the year 2016 and disability was fixed at 30%, for which, the tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.5000/- per percentage. Therefore, on considering the cost of living, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per month and towards disability of 30%, it is to be enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.7000/- per percentage. Considering the fact that the petitioner took treatment in the hospital for more than two months, he would have required the services of an attender, the consolidated sum awarded towards transportation and attender charges is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- respectively. The compensation that has been fixed under the other heads are reasonable and does not require the interference of this Court. 9. In the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows: S. No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.) 1. Disability (30% x Rs.7000) 2,10,000 2. Transportation 10,000 3. Attender charges 10,000 4. Extra nourishment 25,000 5. Damages towards his cloths and articles 5,000 6. 9. In the light of the above discussion, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is modified as follows: S. No. Compensation awarded under the head Amount (in Rs.) 1. Disability (30% x Rs.7000) 2,10,000 2. Transportation 10,000 3. Attender charges 10,000 4. Extra nourishment 25,000 5. Damages towards his cloths and articles 5,000 6. Medical bills 1,04,004 7. Pain and suffering and loss of amenities 40,000 8. Loss of income (Rs15,000/- x 3) 45,000 Total 4,49,004 10. The compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs.2,64,004/- is enhanced to Rs.4,49,004/-. The second respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,49,004/- less the amount already deposited, together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Insofar as the enhanced compensation is concerned, the deficit court fee, if not paid, shall be paid by the claimants. The other directions issued by the Tribunal with regard to the mode of payment of compensation remains unaltered. It goes without saying that the enhanced compensation that is paid by the Insurance Company can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle as was ordered by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.