DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) BEING dissatisfied with the award dated 21. 8,1995 passed in m. V. C. No. 479 of 1994 by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 2 ) FACTUAL matrix as has been exposited is that on 17. 2. 1989 at about 10. 30 p. m. when claimant-appellant was going from malviya Chowk to Karamchand Chowk the respondent No. 1, the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. MIK 2448, dashed the concerned jeep against the claimant. It was alleged that the said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Because of the accident the claimant sustained multiple fractures on his left leg and various other injuries on other parts of the body. The claimant was got hospitalised/ admitted in Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur and availed treatment from 17. 2. 89 to 3. 8. 1989. It was also put forth by the claimant that the treatment continued up to 4. 11. 1990 and he had to undergo further treatment under Dr. Siddique. It was set forth before claims Tribunal in the claim petition that rs. 30,000 was spent for treatment. It was also stated that Rs. 25,000 more was likely to be spent for treatment in future. It was also pleaded that the claimant had sustained permanent disability. Computing on various heads a claim of Rs. 9,85,000 was advanced before the Claims Tribunal. Interest at the rate of 18 per cent was also claimed. It was contended before the Tribunal that the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. , the respondent No. 3 herein and, therefore, insurer was liable to indemnify the owner. ( 3 ) THE owner and driver who had been arrayed as non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition before the Tribunal filed their written statements disputing their liabilities on the ground that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself. It was also put forth by them that the vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant No. 3 therein and if any liability was to be fastened it was to be made good by the insurer. It was also put forth by them that the vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant No. 3 therein and if any liability was to be fastened it was to be made good by the insurer. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed number of issues and came to hold that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The claimant was entitled to Rs. 25,251 towards loss of salary, Rs. 6,000 towards the other expenses and Rs. 20,000 towards the general damages. Thus, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 51,251 in toto. It is to be noted here that the Tribunal has come to hold that the claimant has sustained 20 per cent permanent disability. As the vehicle was insured the liability was fastened on the insurance company and it was directed to pay the awarded sum with 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. R. P. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not put in their appearance. It is submitted by Mr. R. P. Khare, learned counsel, that the quantum of compensation determined by the Claims Tribunal with regard to the general damages is absolutely low inasmuch as the claimant had sustained fractures and injuries and had undergone tremendous mental agony. It is also canvassed by him that once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimant had sustained 20 per cent permanent disability it should have allowed a higher sum than what has been fixed by it. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, in his turn, has contended that the Tribunal has scanned the evidence in detail and quantified the actual damages sustained by the claimant. It is his submission that the claimant has not lost any capacity to work and his career has in no way been affected. It is also put forth by him that as far as the computation of pecuniary damages is concerned no fault can be found with it. He has also supported the grant of Rs. 20,000 towards the general damages. ( 6 ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar we have carefully perused the award. It is also put forth by him that as far as the computation of pecuniary damages is concerned no fault can be found with it. He has also supported the grant of Rs. 20,000 towards the general damages. ( 6 ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar we have carefully perused the award. The core question relates to the quantification of compensation which relates to sphere of general damages. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the grant of Rs. 20,000 is quite low. On a perusal of the reasons given by the Tribunal we find that the Tribunal has correctly determined the pecuniary damages as Rs. 31,251 by taking note of loss of salary and other ancillary factors. As far as grant of compensation relating to arena of general damages is concerned we notice that the claimant had suffered physical pain as well as mental agony. He was hospitalised and availed treatment and had undergone an operation. Considering these aspects, we are of the considered view that the amount awarded on this score has to be enhanced. Taking into consideration the entire gamut of facts, totality of circumstances and considering the suffering undergone by the claimant we think a sum of Rs. 55,000 would be the just amount on this count and accordingly, we enhance the award from Rs. 51,251 to Rs. 86,251. The respondent No. 3 shall pay the balance amount within a period of three months with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. ( 7 ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .