C. L. CHAUDHRY ( 1 ) WHETHER the accident arose due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DLR 6238 and/or DLP 334 as alleged? ( 2 ) WHETHER the petitioners in the respective petitions suffered any injuries, arising out of the said accident as alleged? ( 3 ) ISSUE Nos 1, 2 and 4 were decided in favour of the appellant. So as the amount of compensation is concerned he was awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 i. e. Rs. 13,000. 00 by way of special damages and Rs. 7,000. 00 general damages. The petitioner being dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal has approached this Court by way of this appeal. ( 4 ) MR. Goel contended that the award of the tribunal is meagre and is not just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The appellant remained on leave for eleven and a half months but the tribunal ignored to award the salary of the leave period with all allowances. The tribunal while deciding the case has not awarded any amount as compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by the appellant on account of shortage of the left leg by 2". The tribunal had not taken into account the age of the appellant who was 34 years old on the date of accident. The disability would persist for whole of his life. The appellant was operated upon on 1st April, 1970 by Dr. P. S. Maini, Professor Medical College, Rohtak. Dr. Maini took out a bone from his right hip and grafted it in his left leg which was a very painful operation and the appellant had been undergoing a lot of writhing pains and sufferings. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that the compensation was righly assessed by the tribunal. ( 6 ) I have -considered the relevant contentions of the parties. In my opinion, the amount of Rs. 13,000. 00 awarded to the appellant on account of the special damages seems to be just and reasonable. However, the compensation on account of the general damages to the extent of Rs. 7,000. 00 - seems to be on the lower side. The lower portion of his leg was crushed. He was getting treatment from Irwin Hospital between the period 11th September, 1968 to April 1969. However, the compensation on account of the general damages to the extent of Rs. 7,000. 00 - seems to be on the lower side. The lower portion of his leg was crushed. He was getting treatment from Irwin Hospital between the period 11th September, 1968 to April 1969. In April 1970, he consulted Dr. Chakraborty who advised him bone grafting operation. He was again admitted on 16th September, 1969 in the Tirath Ram Hospital for wound grafting operation by Dr. Chakraborty. He was operated on 17th September, 1969. In March 1970, it was found that the bone had not been united. Dr. Chakraborty advised him another operation. Thereafter he consulted Dr. Maini, Professor Medical College, Rohtak. He was operated by Dr. Maini on 1st April, 1970. He took out a bone from his right hip and grafted it in his left leg. The treatment took about six months. Later on it was found that the left leg had become short by 2". The fact is that the appellant remained in agony from 19th September, 1968 to the end of April, 1970. He had undergone three operations. ( 7 ) IN my opinion, the amount of Rs. 7,000. 00 awarded on account of general damages is on the lower side. It will be just and reasonable if the amount of general damages is increased from Rs. 7,000. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00. In all, the amount is increased from Rs. 20,000. 00 to Rs. 33,000. 00. The tribunal has awarded interest @ 3% p. a. from the date of filing the-petition till expiry of two months from the date of award i. e. 29th August, 1979 and 6% interest after 29th of October, 1969, till payment. The interest @ 3% has been awarded for the reasons that the disposal of the petition was held for one or another fault of the petitioner. I am not inclined to agree with this reasoning of the tribunal. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case I hold that the appellant is entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of filing the petition till realisation. ( 8 ) THE appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the award of the tribunal is modified to the extent that me appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 33,000. ( 8 ) THE appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the award of the tribunal is modified to the extent that me appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 33,000. 00 along with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. Any amount received by the appellant would be adjusted from the amount awarded to the appellant by this Court. ( 9 ) THE appeal is disposed of.