JUDGMENT K.N. Shukla, J 1. This is a claimant's appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, by award dated 3.10.1977. 2. It was not disputed that on 24.8.1976 at about 8 or 8-30 a.m. claimant Umashankar was hit by tanker No. MPF-7362, belonging to the Municipal Corporation, Indore and insured with the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., Indore. As a result of the accident, claimant suffered fracture of his right leg and was hospitalised for a considerable period. Three operations were performed by the Orthopaedic Surgeon and it was alleged that besides suffering physical pain and agony, the claimant suffered permanent disability by shortening of his right leg. According to the claimant the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tanker. Claimant had put a claim for Rs. 75,000/- as compensation. Respondents denied any negligence on the part of the driver. They also denied their liability and quantum of damages claimed by the claimant. 3. The Claims Tribunal held that the tanker in question was driven by the driver Laxmichand in a rash and negligent manner and Respondents were liable to pay compensation. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs. 9,714.00 paise, with interest from the date of award till payment and costs. The break up of the compensation is as follows: (i) Pain and suffering Rs. 3,500/- (ii) Permanent disability Rs. 1,500/- (iii) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 250/- (iv) Loss of pay for 17 months Rs. 3,400/- (v) Medical bills Rs. 1,064/- Total Rs. 9,714/- 4. Claimant in this appeal has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and has also claimed interest from the date of the claim petition instead from the date of the award. 5. Statement of Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr. V.S. Inamdar, Lecturer in the Medical College, Indore, showed that the, Petitioner was admitted to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore on 24.8.1976. He has a compound fracture of tibia and fibula, for which he was operated on the date of admission and was treated in the ward for about six months. He was discharged on 18.2.1977, but was re-admitted on 16.6.1977. There was another operation and an iron-rod was inserted in the fracture with bone grafts in the gap formed in the fractured bone. He was discharged on 18.2.1977, but was re-admitted on 16.6.1977. There was another operation and an iron-rod was inserted in the fracture with bone grafts in the gap formed in the fractured bone. In para 4 he stated that the Petitioner's bone was completely shattered and full recovery was not possible. According to him, there was likely to be shortening of leg by about 1", causing a permanent limp. 6. Dr. Paliwal, (CW. 3), C.M.O., M.Y. Hospital, Indore, had noted the external injuries at the time of admission. 7. The evidence clearly proved that the claimant was hospitalised for nearly one year and had to undergo three operations. There was further evidence to show that his right leg was kept in plaster for 17 months. The award of the Tribunal for pain and suffering and permanent disability was too low in the light of the evidence brought on record. This deserves to be raised to Rs. 10,000/- . This amount will include damages for pain and suffering, permanent disability and loss of expectation of life and impairment of the capacity for enjoyment of life. 8. Other item on which a slight modification in the award is called for relates to the claim for special damages. The claimant had produced a memoranda wherein he had noted various expenses incurred by him from time to time for medicines, conveyance, special diet, etc. The amount totalled up to Rs. 2,289.40, or say Rs. 2,290/- . The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,064/- . It disallowed certain expenditure on the ground that strict proof was not furnished. In fact the amount claimed on this head was not excessive, because admittedly the claimant had been under treatment for a very long period and even during the pendency of the claim petition his right leg was in plaster. The Court below ought to have allowed at least Rs. 1,300/- on account of expenditure incurred on medicines, special diet and conveyance during the period of his treatment. 9. As regards other heads of compensation, there is no ground for interference. 10. Thus, the total compensation payable will come to Rs. 14,900/- . To make it into a round figure, I consider that Rs. 15,000/- should have been awarded as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant. 9. As regards other heads of compensation, there is no ground for interference. 10. Thus, the total compensation payable will come to Rs. 14,900/- . To make it into a round figure, I consider that Rs. 15,000/- should have been awarded as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant. As regards interest the Court below should have allowed interest from the date of the claim petition till payment and not from the date of the award. 11. The appeal is partly allowed. The award is modified to this extent that the Appellant shall be entitled to recover Rs. 15,000/- as compensation with costs of both the Courts and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. Advocate's fee Rs. 75/- , if certified. Appeal allowed.