C. L. Chaudhry ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the awardmade by the Accident Claims Tribunal dated 29th August, 1979 by whichthe appellant was allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000. 00. Theappellant was involved in an accident and suffered injuries. He filed a petition u/sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation to thetune of Rs. 65. 000. 00. The facts as disclosed in the petition are that on 1 9/09/1968 at about 9. 30 p. m. he was going in a three-wheeler scooterno. DLR 6238 which was being driven by the respondent Brij Lal. Whenthree-wbeeler scooter reached in the midst of the crossing at Chhatarailway Bridge from Red Fort towards Kashmere Gate main road, adtc bus No. DLP 334 driven by Chander Bhan, respondent, which wascoming from railway station side and was going towards Jamuna Bridge,dashed in just in the midst of the crossing and caused the accident therebyseriously injuring the appellant. He was immediately taken in a taxi toirwin hospital and was admitted in the emergency ward. He was treatedby the various doctors under the charge of Dr. Mrs. Sita Gupta of theorthopaedic Deptt. of the hospital. He remained in the emergency ward forabout four days and after having been X-rayed operated upon. Havingconsciousness, he was removed to the Orthopedic ward and he wasdischarged from the hospital on 29/09/1968. He was confinedto bed and was not in a position to move. It is further alleged that thepetitioner after graduation passed Stenographer Examination fromupsc. The accident had shaken up the whole bodily structure of thepetitioner and reduced his life expectancy besides causing mental shockand agony. He had to undergo operations many a times. The petitionerwanted to pursue further competitive examination but because of the accident all hopes had been dashed. ( 2 ) THE petition was contested on behalf of the respondents. Thefollowing issues are framed : 1. Whether the accident arose due to the rash and negligentdriving of vehicle No. DLR 6238 and/or DLP 334 as alleged ? 2. Whether the petitioners in the respective petitions suffered anyinjuries arising out of the said accident as alleged ? 3. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitledin this petition and from which of the respondents ? 4. Whether the accident arose due to the contributory negligenceof the petitioner or any one of them and its effect ? 5. Relief. ( 3 ) ISSUES. 3. To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitledin this petition and from which of the respondents ? 4. Whether the accident arose due to the contributory negligenceof the petitioner or any one of them and its effect ? 5. Relief. ( 3 ) ISSUES. 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 ofrs. 20. 000. 00i. e. Rs. 13. 000. 00 by way of special damages and Rs. 7,000. 00general damages. The petitioner being dis-satisfled with the amount ofcompensation awarded by the Tribunal has approached this Court by wayof this appeal. ( 4 ) MR. Goel contented that the award of the Tribunal is meagre and isnot just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Theappellant remained on leave for eleven and a half months but the Tribunalignored to award the salary of the leave period with all allowances. Thetribunal while deciding the case has not awarded any amount as compensation on account of permanent disability suffered by the appellant onaccount of shortage of the left leg by 2". The Tribunal had not taken intoaccount 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 wasoperated upon on 1/04/1970 by Dr. P. S. Maini, Professor Medicalcollege, Rohtak. Dr. Maini took out a bone from his right hip and graftedit in his left leg which was a very painful operation and the appellant badbeen undergoing a lot of writhing pains and sufferings. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent contendedthat the compensation was rightly assessed by the Tribunal. ( 6 ) I have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. In myopinion, the amount of Rs. 13,000. 00 awarded to the appellant on account ofthe special damages seems to be just and reasonable. However, thecompensation on account of the general damages to the extent ofrs. 7,000. 00 seems to be on the lower side. The lower portion of his leg wascrushed. He was getting treatment from Irwin Hospital between the period11th September, 196 8/04/1969. In April 1970, be consulted Dr. Chakraborty who advised him bone grafting operation. He was againadmitted on 16/09/1969 in the Tirath Ram Hospital for woundgrafting operation by Dr. Chakraborty. 7,000. 00 seems to be on the lower side. The lower portion of his leg wascrushed. He was getting treatment from Irwin Hospital between the period11th September, 196 8/04/1969. In April 1970, be consulted Dr. Chakraborty who advised him bone grafting operation. He was againadmitted on 16/09/1969 in the Tirath Ram Hospital for woundgrafting operation by Dr. Chakraborty. He was operated on 17th September,196 9/03/1970, it was found that the bone had not been united. Or. Chakraborty advised him another operation. Thereafter he consulteddr. Maini, Professor Medical College, Rohtak. He was operated by Dr. Maini on 1/04/1970. He took out a bone from his right hip andgrafted it in his left leg. The treatment took about six months. Later onit was found that the left leg had become short by 2 . The fact is thatthe appellant remained in agony from 19/09/1968 to the end ofapril, 1970. He had undergone three operations. ( 7 ) IN my opinion, the amount of Rs. 7,000. 00 awarded on account ofgeneral damages is on the lower side. It will be just and reasonable if theamount of general damages is increased from Rs. 7,000. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00. In -ill the amount is increased from Rs. 20,000. 00 to Rs. 33,000. 00. Thetribunal has awarded interest @ 3% p. a. from the date of filing the petitiontill expiry of two months from the date of award i. e. 29/08/1979 and6% interest after 29th of October, 1969, till payment. The interest @ 3% hasbeen awarded for the reasons that the disposal of the petition was held forone or another fault of the petitioner. I am not inclined to agree with thisreasoning of the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this easel 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 ofthe Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 33,0001- along with interest @ 12% from the date of filingof the petition till realisation. Any amount received by the appellantwould be adjusted from the amount awarded to the appellant by this Court. ( 9 ) THE appeal is disposed of.