DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') the claimant-appellant has called in question the sustainability of the award passed on 25. 11. 1994 by the 4th Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim case No. 66 of 1989 whereby the said tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000 for the injuries sustained by him. ( 2 ) THE facts as have been uncurtained are that the claimant-appellant was an Engineering College student and was aged about 20 years. On 19. 9. 88, he was travelling in a jeep bearing the registration No. MBS 129 (taxi) along with other passengers. Unfortunately, the said taxi was hit by a truck bearing registration No. MBT 9025 which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver, respondent No. 1 herein. Because of this accident, the claimant appellant received serious injuries on the head, eyes and collar-bone and ankle. According to him, he was admitted in Sector 9 hospital, Bhilai from 20. 9. 1988 to 17. 10. 88 and thereafter, for sometime he remained unconscious for 12 days and his eyes became weak, his memory became faint and he suffered mental and physical pain. It was also put forth before the Tribunal that CAT-Scan was done and he had undergone treatment for 2 to 3 years under various doctors. He also sustained injury to the eyes. He developed keratitis. It is also stated that there was fracture of collarbone and a rod was inserted. It was also pleaded by the claimant that because of the accident he could not pursue the study of engineering course. Averring these facts a claim of Rs. 1,00,659. 67 was put forth in the claim petition. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. To further his case the claimant examined himself and a number of witnesses. Dr. G. D. Agrawal, Neurosurgeon in Bhilai Hospital, Dr. A. K. Banerjee, Eye Surgeon of the said hospital and Dr. P. L. Chandrakar were examined as PWs 1, 2 and 4 respectively. The claimant examined himself as PW 3 and Ajit Chawra as PW 5. ( 3 ) LEARNED Tribunal after considering the evidence brought on record, came to hold that there was not sufficient evidence that the claimant had developed any weakness in the eyes. P. L. Chandrakar were examined as PWs 1, 2 and 4 respectively. The claimant examined himself as PW 3 and Ajit Chawra as PW 5. ( 3 ) LEARNED Tribunal after considering the evidence brought on record, came to hold that there was not sufficient evidence that the claimant had developed any weakness in the eyes. He has also arrived at the conclusion that in spite of the injuries in the brain the claimant can lead the life of a normal man. He considered the fracture of collar-bone and insertion of rod. Taking note of the fact that the claimant had suffered for 2 to 3 years and was compelled to postpone his study of Engineering, the tribunal granted Rs. 30,000 towards compensation. The Tribunal has also directed that the said amount should be paid within two months from the date of award, failing which 12 per cent interest would become payable. ( 4 ) IMPUGNING the aforesaid award Mr. H. B. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in determining the quantum. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appreciation of evidence is perverse and direction in regard to the interest is totally untenable. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the award for the reasons indicated therein. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the findings of the Tribunal, we have carefully scanned the materials on record. On a close scrutiny we find that it is a matter of fact that the claimant suffered injuries in the eyes and had suffered keratitis. However, the Tribunal has not accepted that it was a permanent disability as the eyesight has become normal. The Tribunal has opined that his brain has become normal and he is living as a normal person. We have perused the evidence on record. Dr. G. D. Agrawal, PW 1, has categorically stated that the claimant had sustained injury in the brain and he had availed treatment for 2 to 3 years. He has also stated that the claimant had suffered fits. Dr. A. K. Banerjee, PW 2, has also deposed that the claimant had suffered keratitis in the eyes. Similarly, Dr. P. L. Chandrakar, PW 4, has supported the version put forth by the claimant that there was fracture of collar-bone and a rod was inserted. The injuries have been proved by cogent evidence. Dr. A. K. Banerjee, PW 2, has also deposed that the claimant had suffered keratitis in the eyes. Similarly, Dr. P. L. Chandrakar, PW 4, has supported the version put forth by the claimant that there was fracture of collar-bone and a rod was inserted. The injuries have been proved by cogent evidence. The analysis by the learned Tribunal with regard to the normalcy of the claimant is unappreciable. We are unable to give the stamp of approval to the same. It should be borne in mind while assessing the quantum for the purpose of compensation one has to put oneself in the same position with that of the injured. It is a case of multiple injuries and for the same, under compelling circumstances, he had to abandon his studies in the Engineering course. Apart from the pecuniary loss he suffered abnormality and mental agony for a period of three years. Grant of rs. 30,000 towards compensation is absolutely low and deserves to be enhanced. The claimant had put forth a claim of rs. 1,00,659. 67. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained by him and effect and impact of the said injuries on his body, we have no hesitation to allow the claim as claimed by the claimant and accordingly we do so. As far as the interest is concerned, the Tribunal has not ascribed any reason for not granting interest from tbe date of application but directed that in the event of failure of payment of amount in the award by the respondent within two months, 12 per cent interest would accrue. We are not able to affirm the said direction as that is unsustainable. We are of the considered view that the claimant would be entitled to interest on the entire sum awarded from the date of application. Accordingly, it is directed that the insurance company, respondent No. 3, shall pay the entire amount with interest at 12 per cent from the date of claim application less the amount already deposited within three months from today. If the amount awarded is not paid within the stipulated period, same shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. ( 6 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. In the peculiar circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .