BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, dated 6. 11. 95. Accident took place on 10. 6. 1983 when Ambassador car No. MPT 98 owned by respondent No. 1, driven by the father of claimant, hit the milestone. Appellant suffered injuries and was shifted to the government Hospital, Kawardha. After first aid she was taken to Bombay and was also treated at Bhopal. Due to the accident she lost vision of right eye completely. There was ulceration on her left eye with the loss of blinking and lachrymation resulting in dry and painful eye. Vision is also reduced which cannot be corrected by power glass. Vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently as a result of which it hit the milestone. Sushil Kumar died while other occupants received injuries. Compensation of Rs. 7,30,000 has been claimed. ( 2 ) INSURANCE company has not admitted the claim and alleged that father of the claimant himself was responsible for the accident who was driving the vehicle without valid driving licence committing the breach of the policy. Exaggerated claim for compensation has been made. ( 3 ) TRIBUNAL found that accident took place as alleged and the claimant suffered the injuries. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 74,758. 25 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum payable from the date of application till realisation. ( 4 ) THROUGH this appeal enhancement is sought for Rs. 7,30,000. It is submitted that Tribunal did not calculate the compensation correctly, therefore, proper compensation has not been paid. Apart from the facts, as to the injuries, stated above, it is submitted that there was fracture at the base of skull involving ear and nose result ing in ruptures in tympanic membrane and complete loss of hearing of the right ear. Claimant suffered scars over her face and right supraorbital and frontal region resulting in facial disfiguration. She has been caused transient loss of memory and still suffers from headache, irritability and difficulty in concentration. She also suffers from other psychological problems. Appellant was required to undergo surgical and medical treatment at different places. Her claim was substantiated by evidence but the Tribunal did not appreciate the same and awarded meagre compensation thereby causing complete miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal should have allowed her claim of Rs. She also suffers from other psychological problems. Appellant was required to undergo surgical and medical treatment at different places. Her claim was substantiated by evidence but the Tribunal did not appreciate the same and awarded meagre compensation thereby causing complete miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal should have allowed her claim of Rs. 4,15,587 towards medical expenses apart from the expenditure involved in travelling from place to place. Proper amount for mental pain and suffering ought to have been awarded. ( 5 ) WE have considered the evidence produced by the claimant in this case in the light of submissions made above. Claimant has been awarded Rs. 4,258. 25 for medical expenses, Rs. 67,500 for injuries sustained by her and for pain and suffering, Rs. 3,000 have been awarded taking the total to Rs. 74,758. 25. Doctor has fixed the disability to claimant at 30 per cent. His statement is that due to the accident right eye has been rendered absolutely useless and the vision is completely lost. Left eye is damaged to the extent of 30 per cent and is not fully cured. This apart, there is left side facial paralysis. There is small chip fracture of the base of right petrous bone as well as crack of fracture of left petrous bone. There is fracture involving right lesser wing of wephnoid, right zygoma and a small bony chip near right petrous bone. There are enough documents showing the injuries suffered by the claimant in this accident on various parts of the body. She has been treated at nagpur, Bhopal and Bombay. Of course, claimant has filed medical bills to the extent of Rs. 4,258. 25 but material placed on record indicates that she has incurred huge expenditure in medical treatment. Therefore, it should be just and proper to award Rs. 50,000 for medical expenses. ( 6 ) FROM the evidence discussed above, true it may be that the doctor has fixed the disability at 30 per cent but that is general assessment of the case, otherwise, evidence clearly suggests that she lost one eye completely while there is loss of 30 per cent in the second eye which is also beyond cure. That apart, there is paralysis of left facial and she is still under treatment. She has suffered grievously on account of this accident, therefore, award of Rs. 67,500 for pain and suffering appears to be absolutely low. That apart, there is paralysis of left facial and she is still under treatment. She has suffered grievously on account of this accident, therefore, award of Rs. 67,500 for pain and suffering appears to be absolutely low. Consequently, we are of the opinion that claimant should be awarded rs. 2,00,000 towards pain and suffering. Now the further question is that what amount should be awarded to the claimant for transport and conveyance. It has been found that claimant had to move from place to place Bhopal, Nagpur, Bombay for treatment. Sometimes she had to go by indian Airlines flights also (tickets enclosed ). In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that claimant did not incur any expenditure for going to these places. Therefore, it is desirable that lump sum amount is awarded under this head to the claimant. Therefore, amount of rs. 25,000 which will include local conveyance and three attendants, namely, santosh, Parwati and Lilabai which she had to engage, is awarded. ( 7 ) THE result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is allowed. Award of motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, dated 6. 11. 1995 is modified. The claimant shall be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation as under:the enhanced amount will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .