JUDGMENT This is an appeal directed against the award dated 22.4.1995 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 1/91, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for fracture of leg of the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Scooter No. MPF-7959 belonging to Dr. R.K. Jain, respondent No.2, which was driven by the respondent No. 1, met with an accident on 13.9.1987. When the non-claimant No. 1 was going on the said scooter from Pullbogda to Govindpura, he dashed against the claimant - Syed Ahmed from behind near Apsara Talkies, as a result of which, the claimant received a fracture in the leg. A report of the said accident was lodged at the Police Station - Govindpura against the non-claimant No.1 - Sanjay Jain and a case was registered. It is alleged that the vehicle in question was being driven by Sanjay Jain/Non-claimant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant was taken to Kasturba hospital and proper treatment was undertaken. Therefore, a claim petition was filed by the claimant for compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,09,400/-. The Claims Tribunal after examining the necessary evidence, came to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to establish the percentage of his permanent disability on account of the accident. The Claims Tribunal held that since he was being treated in BHEL Hospital and Corporation hospital and he did not pay any expenses for treatment; therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation for that, but he is only entitled to compensation for pain and suffering. The Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- for compound fracture and for mental agony and pain. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the statement of PW 2, Dr. P.K. Rai who deposed that on account of the injury, the claimant has received a permanent disability, but in cross-examination, he has not said that as to what extent, the disability will hamper normal functioning of the victim. However, it is said that the claimant complained to him that he cannot walk properly and work smoothly on the machine. P.K. Rai who deposed that on account of the injury, the claimant has received a permanent disability, but in cross-examination, he has not said that as to what extent, the disability will hamper normal functioning of the victim. However, it is said that the claimant complained to him that he cannot walk properly and work smoothly on the machine. Therefore, the Tribunal held it cannot be said that the compound fracture of Tibia will hamper the normal functioning of the incumbent. But it cannot brushed aside that the fracture will not hamper the normal functioning of the claimant. The claimant on account of this accident remained out of service for six months and he was in the plaster for a long period. Therefore, we are of the opinion that awarding of Rs. 10,000/- would not be an adequate compensation. Hence, we enhance this compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. The claimant has already received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with 12% interest. We direct that over and above, he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- more from the non-claimant No. 1. The non-claimant No. 1 shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant within two months from today failing which he is entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 15% per annum till realization. The appeal is allowed in part.