FAO(MVA) Nos. 319 and 320 of 2005. 2.1.2010 Present: Mr. V.D.Khidta, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal with Mr. Vinod Gupta, counsel for the respondents. Both these appeals arebeing decided by this common judgment as they arise out of the same accident. FAO 319 has been preferred by Shri Khajan Singh and FAO 320 of 2005 by Bhag Singh. The factum regarding the accident is not disputed. The claimants have filed these appeals on the ground of inadequacy of the award. In the case of Khajan Singh, the evidence consisted of the claimant himself who appeared as PW-6 and proved on record the prescription slips Exts. PW-6/A, PW-6/C to PW- 6/F, discharge slip Ex. PW-6/B, cash memos PW- 6/G to Ex. PW-6/N, taxi bill PW-6/O, Eatable bills Ext. PW-6/P to Ex. PW-6/R, receipts Ext. PW-6/S to Ex. PW-6/U. These, according to the Tribunal total up to Rs.4500/-. Ex.PW-6/G is the disability certificate which was placed on record but no doctor was produced to prove this certificate and the fact as to whether the earning capacity of the appellant had been reduced and if so to what extent. The claimant stated that he had spent around Rs.30,000/- on -2- his treatment and Rs.10,000/- on transportation. The learned Tribunal holds that this is not established from the documents on record, as under both the heads, the expenditure incurred is to be supported by bills / cash memos/ receipts which have not been produced. In the totality of circumstances, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which according to it was reasonable. Although on a general principle that payments must be corroborated by bills, cash memos etc. or by some other evidence, the Tribunal is right, but awarding Rs.10,000/- is too meager an amount. It is well known fact that very meticulous detail of the amount spent cannot be maintained. Considering that the appellant has remained hospitalized for three days and suffered injuries on his body, it cannot be denied that over and above the amounts for which cash memos/ receipts etc. have been produced, there must have been other expenditure which the claimant must have spent including the expenses of an attendant. In these circumstances, an additional amount of Rs.12,000/- is awarded over and above the amount as granted by the learned Tribunal. This appeal is accordingly allowed to that extent. -3- In the case of Bhag Singh, the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence in the nature of prescription slips Exts. PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/E, discharge slip Ex. PW-4/F, disability certificate Ex.PW-4/G, cash memos Ex. PW-4/H to Ex. PW-4/N amounting to Rs.2067/-. This claimant also states in evidence that he spent a sum of Rs.37,000/- on his treatment and an additional sum of Rs.15,000/- on his transportation. The disability certificate Ex.PW-4/G shows that he had suffered 15% permanent disability by which his loco motor activity has been impaired, proof of which has been placed on record, but the learned Court holds that the doctor has not been produced in evidence and there is no proof as to why he has been withheld. The amount assessed is Rs.15,000/- in all. As held by me, a very meticulous account of the expenditure is not maintained in an accident for the obvious reason that the person suffers from trauma and in these circumstances cannot be expected to maintain the account of the expenditure incurred by him. The claimant remained hospitalized for 3-4 days and in these circumstances, it would be but reasonable to expect that he must have incurred expenditure over and above what he establishes in evidence. It would thus be reasonable to -4- award an additional sum of Rs.12,000/- to him to take care of the expenditure incurred by him and also for pain and suffering. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. These appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. January 2, 2010 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.