JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the compensation awarded for the injuries in the right radius and ulna and a fracture of the right thumb, causing permanent disablement to the extent of 20 per cent, resulting in flex restriction in the right elbow in between 50 degrees and 135 degrees, which on examination by Dr. K.T. Dholakia, an Orthopaedic Surgeon of international fame, was assessed and advised treatment. But, in spite of taking treatment and physiotherapy the restriction did not improve, hence the appellant got again himself examined on 23.3.1991 by Dr. C.J. Gaekwad, an Orthopaedic Surgeon and Reader in Orthopaedics in J.A. Group of Hospitals, who assessed physical disablement because of the restriction in right elbow and in the wrist to the extent of about 20 per cent of upper limb, whose certificate is Exh. P-28. 2. It is not disputed that the driver of the vehicle, on admission, was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,100/- in a criminal case, wherein an injury report was filed which shows eight injuries, grievous and simple. A certified copy of the injury report is on the record. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence, awarded only Rs. 12,000/- under three heads, that is, Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000 for the expenses incurred on medicines and Rs. 2,000/- for special diet, but no compensation was awarded towards general damages for permanent disablement, hence this appeal for the enhancement of compensation. 3. Mr. N.M. Haswani, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there is enough material, besides the testimony of the appellant and Dr. C.J. Gaekwad, that the injuries caused in the accident by the use of motor vehicle resulted in permanent disablement in the right upper limb, but without any evidence in rebuttal the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the compensation under the head of general damages, particularly when in case of no fault liability, the legislature has enacted a provision for minimum payment of Rs. 12,000/- for such permanent disablement. Learned counsel cited few comparable cases of different High Courts, wherein, for such a disablement, range of compensation awarded varies from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 37,000/-. However, Mr. Haswani submitted that to end the litigation, the claimant would be satisfied if Rs. 20,000 is awarded for permanent disablement. 4. 12,000/- for such permanent disablement. Learned counsel cited few comparable cases of different High Courts, wherein, for such a disablement, range of compensation awarded varies from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 37,000/-. However, Mr. Haswani submitted that to end the litigation, the claimant would be satisfied if Rs. 20,000 is awarded for permanent disablement. 4. Mr. V.K. Sharma and Mr. B.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that by legal evidence the grievous hurt resulting in permanent disablement has not been proved, therefore, the Tribunal rightly did not award the compensation for permanent disablement. 5. After hearing counsel and on going through the evidence and the material on record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the compensation for permanent disablement of 20 per cent, which is proved not only by various documents, but also in court by Dr. Gaekwad. There is evidence on record that the appellant was operated upon and remained as an indoor patient. Therefore, in the absence of a finding of a false claim or that the appellant did not suffer the fracture because of the motor accident, the Tribunal on surmises was wrong in not awarding the compensation for permanent disablement. As the appellant by making an offer has restricted his claim to Rs. 20,000/- for permanent disablement, without dealing with the decisions cited on the question of award towards the permanent disablement, I award Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) under the head of permanent disablement, to which the appellant shall be entitled in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, the appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application, i.e., 26.8.1988 till payment. 6. At this stage, Mr. V.K. Sharma submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal including interest and costs has already been deposited. If that is so, further amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be deposited by the insurance company, the respondent No. 3, with interest thereon, as directed, within six weeks from today. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs in the manner as aforesaid. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- (five hundred), if pre-certified.