JUDGMENT : J.P. Desai, J. The appellant Gafurbhai Hussainbhai Shaikh was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 28-8-1976 at about 11 a.m. near the Narmada river bridge at Bharuch. He filed M.A.C. application No. 106 of 1977 claiming Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to him. Being dissatisfied with the award of the learned Tribunal disallowing the claim in excess of Rs. 51,200/-, the present appeal has been filed by him. 2. The learned advocate Miss. V.P. Shah appears for the appellant, while the learned advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar for Mr. S.B. Vakil appears for respondent No. 3 Insurance Co. 3. The evidence on record as discussed by the learned Tribunal at para 14 of the judgment shows that there were following injuries on the person of the appellant-orig. petitioner: (1) Complaint of rigor. Difficulty in breathing and pain in the back.... (2) On examination, there was tenderness of the lumber region. He could not move with lower extremity. Pain touch and temperature sensation present at lower extremity. Urine could not pass. Paralysis of the lower extremity present. (3) On X-ray examination, compression fracture of the lower lumber region No. 1 was found. 4. It is clear that the appellant-orig. petitioner sustained serious injuries resulting in paralysis of the lower extremity and he found difficulty in passing urine. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- for pain, shock and suffering to the appellant. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the permanent disability, it is clear on the face of it that the amount of Rs. 5000/- on the count of pain, shock and suffering was less. In our opinion, he should have been awarded Rs. 15 000/- as compensation on this count. It also appears that the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 3,000/- towards medical expenses as against the claim of Rs. 6,000/-. Looking to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, we can expect that he would have spent much more than Rs. 3,000/-. But even leaving aside that aspect, if we allow Rs. 15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, the appellant would be entitled to more than Rs. 60,000/- as compensation, but as the claim was for Rs. 60,000/- the appellant would be entitled to that much amount only. The learned Tribunal having awarded Rs. 51,200/-, the appellant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for pain, shock and suffering, the appellant would be entitled to more than Rs. 60,000/- as compensation, but as the claim was for Rs. 60,000/- the appellant would be entitled to that much amount only. The learned Tribunal having awarded Rs. 51,200/-, the appellant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 8800/- as prayed for by him in this appeal. 5. As result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed, the respondents are directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 8,800/- as compensation to the appellant over and above the amount awarded by the tribunal together with the costs of this appeal and proportionate costs of the tribunal on the excess claim and also interest on Rs. 8800/- at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realisation 50% of this additional amount awarded in this appeal to be paid in cash to the appellant, while the rest of the amount to invested in a nationalised bank on the same terms as directed by the learned Tribunal while directing investment of the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Appeal allowed.