JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal, preferred under Section 110(D) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act), is directed against the award dated 2.1.1984 delivered by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in Claim Case No. 49/80. 2. The factual matrix in brief is that the claimant Sahadi (Respondent No. 1) is a Adiwasi woman. The owner and driver of the vehicle were ex-parte before the Tribunal. The vehicle bearing Registration No. MPM-3961 was insured with the Appellant No. 2, the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Indore. On 5.3.1980, the claimant was proceeding in a bullock cart Between Sendhwa and Sirpur on Bombay-Agra Road the aforesaid truck came from opposite direction and dashed against the bullock cart; as a result of which the claimant suffered injuries. The claimant presented the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- together with interest. The liability was denied by the National Insurance Co. On evaluation of the evidence the Tribunal awarded the compensation as under: Rs. 10,000/- towards disability suffered by the claimant. Rs. 15,000/- towards physical paint. Rs. 500/- towards treatment. The Tribunal thus awarded the compensation of Rs. 25,500/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 5.9.1980. In case the amount was not deposited till 5.3.1983, the interest was made payable at the rate of 12 per cent. 3. I have heard Shri Dandwate, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri S.S. Samvatsar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (claimant) None appears for Respondent No. 2. 4. Shri Dandwate, strenuously urged the following contentions in support of this appeal: (a) the Tribunal erred in allowing the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- without any medical proof as regards the alleged disability. (b) the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards the physical pain.. Shri Dandwate thus submitted that the order of award is subvertible. 5. On the other hand Shri Samvatsar submitted that the amount of award is just and reasonable and there is no reasonable basis for interference. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In 1970 ACT 189 (sic) Ku. 15,000/- towards the physical pain.. Shri Dandwate thus submitted that the order of award is subvertible. 5. On the other hand Shri Samvatsar submitted that the amount of award is just and reasonable and there is no reasonable basis for interference. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In 1970 ACT 189 (sic) Ku. Srivastava v. Ved Mitra this Court has laid down the principles for award of (sic) in case of injuries suffered in the accidents as under: (a) The award of compensation must be reasonable and needs to be assessed with moderation, (b) The quantification should be with due regard to comparable cases, (c) The level should, to a considerable extent, be conventional. 7. As regards first contention, I find that there is no medical evidence yet the oral (sic) adduced in this case does indicate the enormity of the injuries suffered by the (sic). However, the basis adopted by the Tribunal is not proper. The approach is slightly (sic) and is bereft of positive conclusion to some extent. Taking into consideration (sic) and injuries caused and taking an overall view of the evidence, adduced in (sic) case I find that a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred), instead of Rs. 10,000/-, would be just and reasonable compensation on this account. 8. As regards second contention, I find that the claimant remained as an indoor, (sic) in the hospital for about one month. The difficulty in walking was experienced (sic) means that pain, could be said to have persisted. Taking overall view of the matter, (sic) that the amount of Rs. 7,500/-, (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred), instead of Rs. 10,000/- would be just and reasonable compensation on this account. 9. The sum of Rs. 500/- awarded towards the treatment is found to be proper and does (sic) any interference. 10. As regards interest, I find that there was no justification for awarding interest at rate 12% p.a. on conditional basis. 11. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed in part. The award is modified to the (sic) that the appellants shall pay to the claimant an amount of Rs. 15,500/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand five hundred) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the (sic) of application (i.e. 5.9.1980) till realisation instead of Rs. 25,500/- and interest as (sic) above. 12. The award is modified to the (sic) that the appellants shall pay to the claimant an amount of Rs. 15,500/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand five hundred) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the (sic) of application (i.e. 5.9.1980) till realisation instead of Rs. 25,500/- and interest as (sic) above. 12. The appellants submitted that the claimant has withdrawn the award amount (sic) to surety as ordered by this Court on 27.8.1984. The liability shall now be worked (sic) on the basis of modification as above and the excess amount, if any, shall be refunded (sic) appellants within a period of three months from today. In case the refund if any, is (sic) within the period of three months i.e. by 30.9.1993, the appellants shall be entitled (sic) the same through the Tribunal and in that case the claimant shall be liable to (sic) the excess amount, if any, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum (sic) from 1.10.1993 till realisation. 13. The appeal thus stands allowed in part. Parties are, however, left to bear their own (sic) of this appeal. The record of the Tribunal be returned.