JUDGMENT This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri dated 24.7.1996 seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident. It is not in dispute that the claimant was posted on duty as security guard from the police department on the bus of MPSRTC going from Bhind to Shivpuri. In the course of journey, on the way the bus turned turtle and many passengers including the present claimant sustained injuries. According to the claimant, in the accident he suffered fracture of back bone and his two teeth were broken. He was hospitalised and after treatment was discharged, but according to him the injuries resulted in permanent physical disability. He claimed special damages for reimbursement of medical expenses and general damages for pain and suffering and loss of prospects in service. The learned member of the Claims Tribunal granted him Rs. 10,000/- general damages and Rs. 10,000/- special damages -- a total sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The learned counsel Shri N.D. Singhal appearing for the claimant cited at the Bar a few cases in support of his claim that for fracture of back bone and loss of two teeth, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each should have been awarded as compensation. It is also stated that interest on the amount awarded should have been granted from the date of claim instead of from the date of award only. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel appears for the Corporation and submits that the claimant in the Claims Tribunal led no evidence in proof of alleged permanent physical disability and any loss on the head of prospects in service. The medical papers filed on record show that the claimant was hospitalised only for about 10 days and thereafter discharged from hospital with advice of six months' rest. The claimant examined Dr. O.P. Shukla, in support of his claim. The doctor has not proved that the claimant suffered any permanent disability and what was its extent. The Doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant was treated in the hospital at Bhind and was discharged after he was recovered. It is not denied that the claimant was in service in the police department. The doctor has not proved that the claimant suffered any permanent disability and what was its extent. The Doctor has stated in his evidence that the claimant was treated in the hospital at Bhind and was discharged after he was recovered. It is not denied that the claimant was in service in the police department. He was treated in a government hospital and he was not required to bear any medical expenditure for treatment and medicine. So far as the claim for medical expenses is concerned, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the head of special damages. In the absence of any proof of permanent physical disability, general damages awarded in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be said to be too low so as to deserve enhancement in this appeal. So far as the claim towards interest from the date of claim is concerned, there is no hard and fast rule of law that interest on the awarded amount must be granted from the date of claim. The interest has been granted from the date of award and there is no reason to interfere with the same as well. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.