JUDGMENT : M. Fathima Beevi, J. A Homeo Medical Practitioner aged 47 sustained personal injuries in the course of an accident that happened on 18.1.1979. Both the bones of his right forearm were fractured. He was hospitalised till 26.1.1979. Subsequently, he had continued the treatment and the disability has been removed finally by 30.4.1980. The accident happened when the motor cycle of the claimant collided with the Ambassador car owned and driven by the first Respondent. The claim made by the injured for compensation was contested by the Respondents. The Claims Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 29,000/- together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from 18.7.1979. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 2. The award is said to be inadequate for the reasons that the monthly income of the claimant had been determined at a low figure, the loss of earnings had not been correctly worked out and the compensation fixed for the pain and suffering and loss of expectation of life is very low. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the evidence of the claimant that he had been getting an average income of Rs. 1,000/- should have been accepted and the evidence that for four years he could not re-establish himself and the loss for these years had not been taken into account. The further submission is that in view of the prolonged treatment for more than one year, a substantial amount should have been allowed as compensation for pain and suffering. We have heard counsel on both sides and considered the entire evidence which has been placed before us. We find that the Claims Tribunal has in determining the compensation considered the evidence in great detail and has allowed all reasonable claims liberally and there is no scope for enhancing the claim on any head whatsoever. A total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- was claimed on the basis that the claimant was getting an average income of Rs. 1,000/-. Exh. R-1, the certificate of the Tehsildar, indicates that the monthly income of the claimant was only Rs. 650/-. In the light of the positive evidence, the vague statement of the claimant had not been accepted as the basis. 1,25,000/- was claimed on the basis that the claimant was getting an average income of Rs. 1,000/-. Exh. R-1, the certificate of the Tehsildar, indicates that the monthly income of the claimant was only Rs. 650/-. In the light of the positive evidence, the vague statement of the claimant had not been accepted as the basis. The claimant has, when examined, admitted that he had revived his practice and he is in a position to prescribe and dispense medicines and that he has no permanent disability. The medical evidence that there is 25 per cent disability is thus disproved by the testimony of the claimant. All the same, there had been fracture on the forearm and care has been taken by undergoing treatment for over one year. For loss of earnings, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was allowed. Rs. 2,000/- was allowed as transport charges. Rs. 1,860/- was allowed as the cost of repairs of the motor cycle. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was allowed as nursing charges. For pain and suffering a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been considered to be adequate compensation. This amount, in our view, is fair. The Tribunal noticed that the disability as per Exh. P-2 is 25 per cent. According to PW 2 who issued Exh. P-2 this disability is likely to affect the claimant's medical practice. The evidence of the claimant disproved the possibility of any continuing disability. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal as compensation for the disability as well as the loss of earning power, in the circumstances, is adequate, fair and reasonable. The claim of the Appellant that a sum of Rs. 6,000/- has been spent for hiring taxi to enable the claimant's wife to go to the hospital and attend on him, has been disallowed by the Tribunal and rightly, in our view. That claim is too remote to be considered in favour of the Appellant. Thus, we hold that the amount of Rs. 29,000/- awarded in this case is reasonable compensation and there is no valid ground for making any enhancement. The Tribunal has allowed interest only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 18.7.1979. In such cases, interest is being allowed at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. There is no particular reason why it should not be granted to the Appellant. 3. The Tribunal has allowed interest only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from 18.7.1979. In such cases, interest is being allowed at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. There is no particular reason why it should not be granted to the Appellant. 3. We accordingly direct that the amount of Rs. 29,000/- allowed as compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from 18.7.1979 till recovery. The balance, if any, due on that basis shall be paid by the Respondents within a period not exceeding two months. The appeal is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.