JUDGMENT : 1. In the above captioned three appeals, challenge is to the common impugned order of 15th April, 2015 vide which compensation of Rs.14,00,576/- has been granted to the legal heirs of deceased-Smt. Poonam and to injured/respondents-Jyoti and Shobha, compensation awarded is to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.6,70,000/- respectively. 2. Since these appeals arise out of a common impugned order, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the claimants on account of death of Smt. Poonam in the accident in question under the Head “loss of love and affection” is on the higher side. This submission is controverted by learned counsel for respondents who has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kala Devi & ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan 2014 12 SCALE 513 to show that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to minor children on account of “loss of love and affection”. However, to the mother of the deceased, Supreme Court in a decision in Smt. Neeta, w/o Kallapa Kadolkar & ors. Vs. The Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 625 has granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the Head of “loss of love and affection”, whereas impugned order grants compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased under this Head. 4. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that so far as the compensation granted to the minor children of deceased-Smt. Poonam is concerned, the same is not on the higher side, but the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards “loss of love and affection” granted to mother of the deceased ought to have been Rs.50,000/- and not Rs.1,00,000/-. To this extent, the impugned order stands modified and the compensation awarded to the legal heirs of deceased stands reduced from Rs.14,00,576/- to Rs.13,50,576/-. 5. As regards grant of compensation to injured-Shobha is concerned, impugned order grants Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings; Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings; Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance/ transport. It is noted in the impugned order that respondent/injured-Shobha had not suffered any permanent disability. However, she had suffered united fracture on left leg. 5. As regards grant of compensation to injured-Shobha is concerned, impugned order grants Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of future earnings; Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings; Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance/ transport. It is noted in the impugned order that respondent/injured-Shobha had not suffered any permanent disability. However, she had suffered united fracture on left leg. It is also noted in the impugned order that there are no medical bills to support the expenses incurred on the treatment. Attention of this Court is drawn to the Medical Certificate (Ex. RW1/1) of respondent/injured-Shobha to show that in relation to left lower limb, reassessment was recommended. However, no reassessment was got done by respondent/injured-Shobha. Impugned order is silent as to on what basis loss of future earnings has been assessed. Respondent/injured- Shobha has vaguely deposed that she had suffered a lot of mental pain and agony for a long time. On the basis of such vague assertion, grant of compensation under the various heads, as noted above, is not at all justified. 6. Reliance was placed upon a decision of 2nd December, 2008 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 3317/2007, Amandeep Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & ors. to the effect that where no medical bills were forthcoming, still compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-with interest was granted in a case of fracture of both the legs to a minor child of 10 years. There may not be medical bills to support the medical expenses but nothing had stopped respondent/injured-Shobha to show by which mode she had travelled for her treatment and in any case, it is not the case of respondent/injured- Shobha that there was a loss of future earnings. In such a case, grant of Rs.5,00,000/ towards loss of future earning is wholly unjustified and is accordingly set aside. Similarly, grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of pain and sufferings is certainly on the higher side and is accordingly reduced to a reasonable sum of Rs.50,000/-. 7. While taking judicial notice of the fact that for treatment of a fractured leg, respondent/injured-Shobha must have incurred some expenses on medical and travelling also, it is deemed appropriate to reduce compensation under the medical expenses to a sum of Rs.30,000/- and to Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses. However, respondent/injured-Shobha needs to be compensated for the loss of earning for three months. However, respondent/injured-Shobha needs to be compensated for the loss of earning for three months. It is not disclosed by her in her evidence as to what amount she was earning on monthly basis. However, taking her income on the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker, it is deemed appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- to her for three months under this Head. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned order is modified qua respondent/injured- Shobha. 8. In a case of simple injury, respondent/injured-Jyoti has been granted a sum of 50,000/- towards special diet taken by her. This amount on the face of it appears to be quite exorbitant, particularly when the injury sustained by respondent/injured-Jyoti was simple in nature. It is deemed appropriate to reduce the compensation to Rs.10,000/- under this head. Under the head of ‘pain and sufferings’ the awarded compensation is of Rs.50,000/- A bare perusal of evidence of respondent/injured-Jyoti reveals that she has not elaborated as to what pain and suffering she had undergone due to simple injuries sustained by her in the accident in question. In view thereof, grant of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings appears to be on the higher side and so compensation granted is accordingly reduced to Rs.25,000/- under this head. A sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded towards medical expenses to respondent/injured-Jyoti though there are no medical bills on record. It is reasonable to conclude that respondent/ injured-Jyoti had spent Rs.10,000/- towards her medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses incurred by her. In addition, Rs.10,000/- is awarded to respondent/injured-Jyoti towards loss of earning for the period in question. 9. Consequently, awarded compensation to respondent/injured–Jyoti stands reduced from Rs.1,35,000/- to Rs.60,000/. In case of respondent/injured-Shobha the awarded compensation stands reduced from Rs.6,70,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/- and in case of deceased- Poonam, the awarded compensation is reduced from Rs.14,00,576/- to Rs.13,50,576/-. 10. To the aforenoted extent, these appeals are partly allowed and are accordingly disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.