JUDGMENT R.K. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant-injured against the award dated 30.4.1982 made by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, in Claim Case No. 58 of 1978, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 14,093.51 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 21.3.1978, till realisation, in respect of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident, which took place on 22.9.1977. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: On 22.9.1977 at about 4.15 p.m. while the appellant-claimant was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. MPM 5056 over the railway bridge at Indore towards Regal crossing, the offending car bearing registration No. MP 0565 belonging to respondent No. 1 and driven by Ramlal, respondent No. 2, dashed against the said motor cycle, as a result of which the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries including a compound fracture of tibia and fibula bones of his right leg. The claimant-injured was treated in the M.Y. Hospital, Indore, for 15 days and thereafter he received treatment in Indore Hospital for 12 days and after that the treatment was continued in Union Hospital belonging to Dr. Varma and the claimant had to undergo operation twice and ultimately the claimant acquired a permanent disability to the extent of 30 per cent. 3. On a claim petition having been filed by the claimant, the learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, found that the motor accident resulting in the injuries and permanent disablement to the claimant occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car by the respondent No. 2. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal found the claimant-injured entitled to Rs. 14,093.51 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 21.3.1978 till realisation. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. 14,093.51 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 21.3.1978 till realisation. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has unreasonably refused to allow the special damages on the item of treatment beyond the date of filing of the petition although the claimant was required to incur expenses on medicines during the pendency of the petition, in proof of which documentary proof has been placed on record. It has been submitted against the claimant that the claimant had claimed Rs. 4,000/- in the claim petition as expenses incurred on treatment and had led documentary evidence of expenses only up to the date of filing of petition, i.e., 21.3.1978 and not for the period of pendency of the petition, although the treatment of the injured-claimant had continued during trial of the claim petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending car, has not pointed out any authority to show that claim for expenditure incurred on treatment of the injuries of the claimant after the filing of the claim is not admissible. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has next submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly rejected the statement of the claimant that he had to spend substantial amount on special diet including fruits and milk during the period of treatment, in the absence of documentary evidence in that regard. In the nature of things it is plausible that the claimant-injured would require special diet during the period of treatment and as such the claimant's statement about expenditure on special diet having been incurred, should not have been rejected outright and a reasonable sum ought to have been allowed on that count. The claimant appeal's to have been under treatment from the date of accident, i.e., 22.9.1977 to November, 1979, as is evident from the exhibits showing expenditure of medicines and treatment of the injured-claimant. In my opinion, at least a substantial amount must have been spent on special diet during the period of treatment and as such the appellant-claimant must be held entitled to a reasonable sum on the item of special diet during treatment. 7. In my opinion, at least a substantial amount must have been spent on special diet during the period of treatment and as such the appellant-claimant must be held entitled to a reasonable sum on the item of special diet during treatment. 7. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claimant's claim of loss of income during the period he was getting treatment for the compound fracture of tibia and fibula of his leg on the ground that he did not produce the documentary proof of the business in respect of his tailoring shop. The claimant has stated that he is engaged in the business of tailoring since the year 1966 and it is proved that he pays income tax. The learned Tribunal has held that the oral statement of the applicant cannot be believed as regards loss of income. 8. It has been found that even after prolonged treatment and surgical operation of his leg the claimant has acquired permanent disability of his leg to the extent of 30 per cent. The claimant has stated that his income prior to the said accident was Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per year and now his monthly income is Rs. 500/- per month. His job in the tailoring shop is taking measurements and tailoring the cloth for the garments as ordered by the customers. It has been submitted that on proved facts, viz., that the claimant had serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement of his leg and that he had to undergo prolonged treatment and that he was a tailor engaged in the business of tailoring, it cannot be inferred that the claimant suffered no loss of income during the period he was under treatment in respect of his injuries. As such, the learned Tribunal was not right in rejecting outright the oral evidence of the claimant on the question of loss of income. The claimant has claimed a sum Rs. 4,000/- as loss of income from the date of the accident up to the date of filing of the claim petition, and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- for future loss of income in business. The claimant has been under treatment even during the pendency of the claim petition. 9. The claimant has claimed a sum Rs. 4,000/- as loss of income from the date of the accident up to the date of filing of the claim petition, and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- for future loss of income in business. The claimant has been under treatment even during the pendency of the claim petition. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this court in Rajendra v. Bishambhar Nath 1987 ACJ 23 (MP), in support of his submission that the expenses on medicine, diet, etc., for the period subsequent to the filing of the claim petition, if the injured was still under treatment during the trial, should have been allowed and that the evidence adduced even without bills and vouchers has to be broadly assessed in the context of the circumstances proved in the case. But, in the instant case, however, the appellant-claimant has adduced documentary evidence on treatment and has given oral evidence in respect of expenses on special diet incurred during the period of treatment. 10. Considering the fact that in a claim case arising out of motor accident the claimant is necessarily required to meet the expenses incurred on the treatment and special diet during the period of treatment and the fact that until the claimant's injuries heal and he becomes fit for normal business engagements, he is bound to suffer loss of income, it must be held that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimant was entitled only for the expenses on treatment incurred up to the date of filing the petition ignoring the oral evidence of the claimant as to expenses incurred on treatment and special diet and loss of income till the date of award is not sustainable in law. The claimant must be held entitled to a just and fair compensation on the items of treatment, special diet and loss of income. 11. I think that in the facts and circumstances brought in evidence, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- at least should have been allowed as special damages on the score of treatment, special diet and loss of income during the period of claimant's treatment. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- as special damages instead of Rs. 2,093.51 as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12. As regards general damages of Rs. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant shall be entitled to receive Rs. 10,000/- as special damages instead of Rs. 2,093.51 as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12. As regards general damages of Rs. 12.000/- awarded by the Tribunal, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that having regard to prolonged and permanent disablement of claimant's leg, the said amount is a meagre compensation. Learned counsel has cited a decision of this court in Sureshsingh v. Kamlesh 1987 ACJ 429 (MP), wherein for the fracture of thigh bone resulting in shortening of leg by one inch and permanent disability assessed as 10 per cent the amount of general damages was enhanced from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has, on the other hand, cited two decisions of this court where in each case the claimant has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on account of permanent disability due to fracture of leg. These decisions are Salauddin v. Raju 1990 (II) MPWN 45 and Jamnalal v. R.J. Foujdar 1989 (I) MPWN 103. These two cases in my opinion are comparable on facts to the instant case and as such, I deem it fit to enhance the amount payable as general damages from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. 13. As regards interest of 6 per cent awarded by the learned Tribunal the same is quite inadequate and deserves to be raised to 10 per cent as has been claimed in the claim petition. 14. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the claimant is held entitled to general damages of Rs. 15,000/- and special damages of Rs. 15.000/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified inasmuch as the claimant is held entitled to receive from the respondent a total sum of Appeal partly allowed. Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation instead of Rs. 14,093.51 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.