ORDER A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed being aggrieved with the award dated 30.3.82 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 145 of 80, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 74457- as compensation to the Claimant with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and the costs of the claim. The appellant is aggrieved with the inadequacy of the compensation. 2. The facts, leading to this appeal, in short, are that the present appellant filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation against the non-applicants on the ground that on 26.2.1980 at about 8.30 p.m. when the appellant was going from Kabutarkhana to Chandrabhaga, Indore on foot along with two other colleagues, truck No. MPI-3431 approached them, being driven in excessive appeal and negligently by respondent No. 1 Wahid Khan and it dashed against the petitioner who was going on his side. As a result of the impact of the truck, the appellant received injuries on the leg, knee and right hand. He was immediately sent to M.Y. Hospital Indore where he was treated by Dr. Gaikwad. His leg was plastered and he was allowed to go home. When the plaster was opened on 24.1.80 it was found that the leg bone of the applicant had not joined properly and his leg had become curved due to which there was limping in the leg. Due to the aforesaid injury the applicant has become permanently disabled and he had to undergo lot of mental agony, pain and had to incur heavy expenditure on the treatment, special diet and keeping an attendant. Therefore, under different heads, claim of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation was made against the respondents, the respondent No. 1 being the driver of the vehicle, respondent No. 2 being the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No. 3 being the Insurance Company where the truck was insured and respondent No. 4 was also added later on by amendment as an owner of the vehicle. 3. The claim resisted by the non-applicants on the ground that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No. 1 and the entitlement of the amount of compensation as claimed by the appellant was also disputed. 4. 3. The claim resisted by the non-applicants on the ground that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No. 1 and the entitlement of the amount of compensation as claimed by the appellant was also disputed. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings the learned lower Tribunal framed 11 issues to decide the petition and it was held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the relevant truck by the driver respondent No. 1 and as a result of that the claimant received injury on the left leg which caused the fracture of the bone of the left leg. However, as regards the entitlement of compensation the lower Tribunal was of the view that the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 1445/- on expenses of medical treatment, special diet and conveyance etc, including the loss of income. The claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 3 (three) percent but he is not entitled to get compensation on this count as claimed by the claimant. The petitioner was held entitled to get Rs. 2000/- for the loss of future amenity, Rs. 4000/- for physical pain and mental agony. However, it was not found proved that the petitioner is not in a position to walk. As such an amount of Rs. 7445/- was awarded as compensation. Hence this appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 5. The learned Counsel for the claimant Shri Sujan Jain strenuously argued that the amount awarded is too low. He has cited different judgments of the High Courts and this court wherein in identical cases more compensation was awarded. 6. On the other hand Shri S.K. Jain learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 argues that in view of the evidence on record and the purchasing power of the money at the time of the accident, the award is most reasonable and does not require any interference. 7. Before me there is no dispute about the finding pertaining to negligence and liability. The only issue before me is about the quantum of compensation. The learned lower Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for loss of future amenities, whereas the claimant had claimed Rs. 5000/- on that count. 7. Before me there is no dispute about the finding pertaining to negligence and liability. The only issue before me is about the quantum of compensation. The learned lower Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for loss of future amenities, whereas the claimant had claimed Rs. 5000/- on that count. Now, in the instant case court has found, as proved, which has not been challenged before me, that the claimant had suffered 3 per cent permanent disability and that he was treated for a very long time because of the mal-union of the bone of the leg. As such it cannot be denied that he must have suffered physical pain and mental agony for a very long time. The claim on both the counts i.e. loss of future amenities and physical pain and mental agony has been made claiming a reasonable amount i.e.Rs. 50007- on each count. In my opinion looking to the age of the claimant, who was 28 years of age at the time of the accident, and the period of treatment for about 4-1/2 months and the permanent disability to the extent of 3 per cent, the Court should have allowed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as claimed under the heads of future amenities, physical pain and mental agony. The lower Court has erred in granting Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 4000/- respectively on these counts. As such on this count the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 6,000/- allowed by the lower Court. 8. As regards the compensation for loss of earning, expenses and special diet and keeping an attendant to help the petitioner, the court has allowed only Rs. 1445/- on this count. In my opinion, the award on these counts is also on the lower side. In view of the nature of the ailment and the duration of the treatment coupled with the fact that the applicant was on half pay during the period of treatment specified in the petition and found to be proved by the lower court, the amount of Rs. 1445/- on this Count cannot be held to be proper. In my opinion, in absence of proper vouchers, the petitioner should have been allowed at least Rs. 5000/- on this count. The lower Court has computed the loss of earning as Rs. 745/-, Rs. 120.35 for medical bill and Rs. 7007- in getting treatment. 1445/- on this Count cannot be held to be proper. In my opinion, in absence of proper vouchers, the petitioner should have been allowed at least Rs. 5000/- on this count. The lower Court has computed the loss of earning as Rs. 745/-, Rs. 120.35 for medical bill and Rs. 7007- in getting treatment. But as held earlier the total amount of Rs. 1445/- is too low an estimate. Therefore, compensation on this count has also to be enhanced. 9. As regards the future pecuniary loss, I agree with the learned lower Tribunal that the appellant has not been able to prove the future pecuniary loss and, therefore, no interference in that finding is necessary. As such I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, in place of Rs. 7445/- allowed to the appellant, as compensation from the respondents. As regards the interest, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of the application till the recovery of the enhanced amount. However, the rate of interest awarded by the lower Court on Rs. 7445/- shall remain the same. 10. In the result the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. The compensation of Rs. 7445/- awarded to the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount of Rs. 8555/-. However in view of the fact this appeal partly succeeds, the parties shall bear their own costs as incurred.