K. M. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The respondent 3 the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred a cross-objection and has made a prayer for setting aside the entire award. ( 2 ) IT was alleged that on 23-02-1985 at about 10. 00 a. m. the appellant was going on his motor bike towards police Line on the Police Line Road, Jhabua. He was on his left side and was going slow. In the meanwhile. Jeep No. MPU 1306 belonging to the respondent 2 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, driven by the respondent 1 Muzaffar Hussain and insured with the respondent 3 the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. came in great speed from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike of the appellant, resulting in fracture below his right knee. He accordingly filed a claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. The respondents resisted the claim. After trial, the Claims Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, which has given rise to the said appeal and the cross-objection. ( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have reached to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant or in the cross-objection preferred by the respondent 3. ( 4 ) THE evidence brought on record shows that the appellant was a Research Assistant in the Agriculture Department at Jhabua and his salary was about Rs. 1,200/- per month. Due to the accident, he had sustained compound fracture on his right leg. There is no evidence as to whether the compound fracture sustained by the appellant resulted in any permanent disability to him or that it affected his future prospects of life or his earning capacity. Under the circumstances we are of the view that the general damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be low or unreasonable. Similarly the award of special damages to the extent of Rs. Under the circumstances we are of the view that the general damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be low or unreasonable. Similarly the award of special damages to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- cannot be said to be low or unjust, because the evidence brought on record shows that the appellant had obtained free medical treatment in the Government hospital, Bhopal and that the medicines available in the hospital were also supplied to him free of cost. The medicines alleged to have been purchased by the appellant also did not exceed an amount of Rs. 800/- as per cash memos filed as Ex. A3 to Ex. A-14. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE owner or the driver of the vehicle has not filed any appeal or cross-objection. General defences open to the owner or driver of a vehicle are not available to the Insurance Company. It has limited right to defend the action only on grounds mentioned in S. 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Since the cross-objection is not based on any of the grounds mentioned in S. 96 (2) of the Act, it requires no consideration and accordingly it deserves to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IN the result, both the appeal and the cross-objection fail and they are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their costs of the appeal and the cross-objection as incurred. Appeal and cross-objection dismissed. .