appellant. Evidently, Ext.A3 would reveal that in the accident the appellant had a compression fracture on the 2nd lumbar vertebra and he had been an inpatient about 12 days. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that fixation of amount under the head pain and suffering' by the Tribunal was on the lower side. The Tribunal fixed compensation under the said head only at 15,000/- and taking into₹ account the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get 20,000/- under the said head. In other₹ words, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal he is entitled to get an amount of 5,000/- more. Taking into account the₹ fact that the appellant had been inpatient for 12 days and also taking into account the injury which he had sustained we are of the view that some amount ought to have been granted to the appellant under the head extra nourishment which we fix at 2,400/-. Taking into account₹ the fact that he had been an inpatient for about 12 days indisputably he must have had the service of a bystander during the said period. However, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head bystander's expenses' is too meagre. In fact, only an amount of ₹ 100/- per day alone was granted and we are of the view that the amount has to be enhanced to 200/- per day for a period of 12 days.₹ In view of the discussion as above, we are inclined to allow the appeal
