account the said aspects, there can be no doubt that he must have endured excruciating pain from the injuries sustained in the accident. We are of the view that the amount granted under the said head by the Tribunal is too inadequate to compensate the same. Taking into account such circumstances, the amount actually claimed by the appellant for pain and suffering is also on the lower side. Taking into account all such circumstances, we are of the view that towards pain and suffering, the appellant is entitled to get an amount of 40,000/-. In such circumstances, after deducting 15,000/- already granted by the Tribunal under the said head, the appellant would be entitled to get 25,000/- more. The appellant claimed an amount of 10,000/towards loss of amenities and conveniences and the Tribunal granted only a meagre amount of 3,000/-. The nature of the injuries vividly explained hereinbefore would undoubtedly go to show that the amount granted by the Tribunal is too meagre and it requires modification. We do not find any reason for not granting the amount claimed by the appellant viz., 10,000/-. In such circumstances, after
