ORDER A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claims Case No. 59 of 78 on 1980. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the present appellant filed a claim before the lower Tribunal alleging that on 6.11.1977 at about 5.15 p.m. he was going on a cycle with the milk pot from village Kishanpura to Umaria. He was driving the bicycle very cautiously on the left side of the road when he reached near the Rasalpura Gate respondent No. 2 came from the Indore side driving truck No. MPN-5895 rashly and negligently with speed, and while so driving the dashed the front portion of the truck against the cycle on which the appellant was riding. Due to the dash the petitioner fell down and received injuries on both the legs, right hand and other parts of the body. He has admitted in the M.Y. Hospital Indore from 7.11.77 to 9.11.77. and his right leg was plastered for a period of three months. The appellant was aged 23 years. He was working in a factory at Rsalpura. earning Rs. 225/- per month as wages and Rs. 125/- per months he used to get as a milk vendor. He was also studying for Higher Secondary examination privately. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the respondents for the rash and negligent act of respondent No. 2 for which respondents No. 1 being the owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the vehicle were vicariously liable. 3. The learned Tribunal after the trial of the case passed an award of Rs. 4467.55 p. in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Hence this appeal for enhancement of the amount of the award. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Neema argues that the amount of award is erroneous in as much as the learned Tribunal has ignored to take the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the appellant, into consideration. According to him the wages of the claimant has also wrongly been calculated by the learned Tribunal ignoring the evidence on record. The amount on the count of mental agony, pain and suffering is also on a lower side. 5. On perusing the evidence on record I find that according to Dr. According to him the wages of the claimant has also wrongly been calculated by the learned Tribunal ignoring the evidence on record. The amount on the count of mental agony, pain and suffering is also on a lower side. 5. On perusing the evidence on record I find that according to Dr. Ohri the claimant had suffered fracture of the right tibia and fibula bones of the upper one-third. The fracture was comminuted fracture. Initially the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 7.11.77 and discharge on 11.11.77 after the plastering of the fractured portion for a period of 1-1/2 month. Thereafter on 16.12.77 the leg was again plastered which was again opened on 6.1.1978 for examining the union of the bones. Thereafter on 6.2.1978 the appellant was examined and it was found that the fractured bones had united. However, it was advised that the appellant should not put more load on the fractured leg. Dr. Ohri has further stated that after the union of the bones it takes normally 3 to 4 months for full recovery. As such the fracture was not united for a period of four months and there after also for about 4 months the appellant had not fully recovered. As such for a period of eight months he was not in a position to his normal duties. The appellant Bharat Singh states that as a result of the fracture he remained in the hospital for about 5 months, but the does not say that he was fully recovered within that period. Although he has admitted that he could not work for a period of 5 months, but that would not be construed to mean that he had fully recovered in view of the medical opinion of Dr. Ohri. 6. After the accident the appellant was not working as a milk vendor from which he was getting an additional income in addition to the work in the Umbrella factory. P.W. 7 Vijay Singh states that the claimant was working as a milk vendor with him and he used to pay him Rs. 125/- per month. After the accident he had come to him and tried to ride a bicycle, but he could not do so and, therefore, he stopped the work of milk Vendor. P.W. 7 Vijay Singh states that the claimant was working as a milk vendor with him and he used to pay him Rs. 125/- per month. After the accident he had come to him and tried to ride a bicycle, but he could not do so and, therefore, he stopped the work of milk Vendor. It has also come in the evidence that till 2.4.1978 the appellant could not work in the factory and thereafter he started working in the factory. Now, as regards the loss of income from the Umbrella factory, of course the loss is for a period of five months only and that would be Rs. 1000/-. But the loss of the income from milk vending cannot be only for a period of 5 months, but it was according to the medical evidence for a period of 8 months and the loss of earning for 8 months at a rate of Rs. 125/- would be Rs. 1000/-. As such on the count of loss of income the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 2000/- instead of Rs. 1325/- awarded by the lower Court. 7. It has not been proved by any evidence that the appellant has become permanently disabled and, therefore, he is entitled to get only Rs. 2000/- on account of the loss of income caused due to the fracture. The lower Court has rightly awarded the expenses on special diet and treatment and has also not erred in any way in awarding compensation for the loss of bicycle, milk utensil and the milk. However, in view of the nature of the ailment the amount awarded for mental and physical suffer is also on a lower side. In my opinion, in view of the nature of the injuries and the duration of the suffering of the appellant, he is entitled to get Rs. 5000/- on that count in place of Rs. 2000/-. As such the appellant is held entitled to get Rs. 8142.55 p. in place of 4467.55 p. awarded by the lower Tribunal. Rounding up this figure I hold that the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 8145/- as compensation and the interest on that amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in view of the settled position of law by the Supreme Court on this point. 8. In the result this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rounding up this figure I hold that the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 8145/- as compensation and the interest on that amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in view of the settled position of law by the Supreme Court on this point. 8. In the result this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The award be modified accordingly. The appellant shall also be entitled to get the cost of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/- if certified.