BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals, m. A. No. 927 of 1997 (Binoti Patnaik v. State of M. P.) and M. A. No. 617 of 1997, (State of M. P. v. Binoti Patnaik) are proposed to be decided by this judgment since they arise out of the same accident and the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in Claim Case No. 24 of 1995, dated 5. 2. 1997. Claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 for disability, Rs. 35,000 for pain and suffering and other expenses and Rs. 5,000 for special diet) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. That apart, Rs. 500 have been awarded towards counsel's fee. ( 2 ) BINOTI Patnaik (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') was going from Durga petrol Pump to Panchsheel Nagar, by a moped No. MP 04-E 3198. It was on the left side of the road and when she reached bus stop No. 5 near Durga Petrol Pump and the crossing, jeep bearing registration no. MP 02-434, driven by Anwar with speed, dashed against the moped of the claimant. As a result, she fell down and received injuries. She was admitted in the hospital where she remained from 1. 9. 1994 to 15. 10. 1994. Her left leg was operated because of the fracture and plastered. Because of fracture of tibia bone, she was admitted again in the hospital and operated on 17. 1. 1995. At the time of accident, she was working as an Accountant with Kabra agro Industries Ltd. , Bhopal, receiving rs. 2,000 per month. Compensation of rs. 3,12,000 has been claimed. ( 3 ) ANWAR (driver) has denied the taking place of the accident. He states that on this day, he had gone to Vidisha with the Dy. Director, Agriculture, and returned back to bhopal at 4 p. m. He had parked the jeep in the garage and went to his house. Other respondents have taken the same stand which has been taken by Anwar. ( 4 ) ON the basis of evidence, the Claims tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place when the jeep, driven rashly and negligently by Anwar, hit the claimant resulting in serious injuries to her. Consequently, she has been awarded compensation as mentioned in the preceding part of the judgment. ( 4 ) ON the basis of evidence, the Claims tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place when the jeep, driven rashly and negligently by Anwar, hit the claimant resulting in serious injuries to her. Consequently, she has been awarded compensation as mentioned in the preceding part of the judgment. ( 5 ) BOTH the parties are not satisfied with this award and, therefore, it has been challenged through separate appeals under consideration. ( 6 ) FIRST question for consideration is whether the accident took place as alleged by the claimant. It is stated by her that on 1. 9. 1994, at about 11-11. 30 a. m. when she was going on her Luna to Panchsheel nagar, at the crossing of Durga Petrol pump, the jeep came from the other side and hit her Luna, though she was moving on the left side of the road. As a result of this accident, she fell down and her moped was dragged by the jeep. She tried to get up, but could not do so as her foot was hanging. She noticed the number of the jeep as MP 02-434. One Arjunsingh took her to the hospital in a Tempo and the matter was reported by him to the police. She remained admitted in Kasturba Hospital, b. H. E. L. where she was initially treated by dr. Agrawal who conducted the operation. Skin-grafting was undertaken and nailing resorted to. Thereafter she was treated by dr. P. K. Rai. She continued coming to the hospital for treatment. From 1. 9. 1994 to june, 1995, she remained confined to bed and unable to walk. Before the accident, she was working in Kabra Agro Industries ltd. , Bhopal (Annexure P-6 ). On account of accident, she underwent great mental pain and suffering. In January, 1995, Dr. Agrawal and Dr. Rai conducted bonegrafting on her and due to this accident, six operations have been performed on her. She moves with crutches. Since her foot cannot take the weight, she suffered income loss. At the time of accident, the jeep was moving at fast speed and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver. She did not tell the number of the jeep to Arjunsingh, since he already knew it. She moves with crutches. Since her foot cannot take the weight, she suffered income loss. At the time of accident, the jeep was moving at fast speed and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver. She did not tell the number of the jeep to Arjunsingh, since he already knew it. She has denied the suggestion that she was driving the moped at fast speed resulting in the accident. On being asked that on the date of the accident, the jeep had gone to Vidisha with mishra from the Department of Agriculture, she states that as a matter of fact, the jeep was in front of her at the time of accident. She denied the suggestion that the accident was not committed by the jeep and she took the number of her own. She had seen the jeep coming to that side and causing the accident. As a result of the accident, front portion of her Luna was completely damaged apart from petrol tank. Her Luna was taken by the police after she was brought to the hospital. She denies that the accident took place due to her fault and that she did not see the number of the jeep. ( 7 ) ANWAR has admitted that he was a driver in the Agriculture Department and had been assigned the jeep on 1. 9. 1994 for duty with Mishra, Joint Director, Agriculture. On 1. 9. 1994, the jeep was called at 9 a. m. and he reached at the house of Mishra at 9. 15 a. m. He left for Vidisha at 9. 30 a. m. and reached Vidisha at about 11 a. m. They returned at 2. 30 p. m. and the jeep was kept in the garage. Entry in the logbook of the journey is made by the officer, while he did the meter reading on 1. 9. 94 on which date, no accident took place with his vehicle. He denies taking place of the accident with the Luna, but admits that concerning this accident, he was released on bail by habibgunj police. ( 8 ) K. N. Mishra is the Joint Director, agriculture. He supports the case of the driver Anwar that he had gone to Vidisha on official work, leaving Bhopal at 9. 30 a. m. , reaching Vidisha at about 11. ( 8 ) K. N. Mishra is the Joint Director, agriculture. He supports the case of the driver Anwar that he had gone to Vidisha on official work, leaving Bhopal at 9. 30 a. m. , reaching Vidisha at about 11. 30 a. m. , returning at about 2. 30 p. m. and coming to his office in Vindhyachal Bhawan at 4-4. 30 p. m. He got involved in his work and the driver must have taken the vehicle for being kept in the garage. He entered the Vidisha journey in the logbook Exh. D-l, copy of which is Exh. D-l-C, signed by him. He admits that in the logbook Exh. D-l, the entry has been made at page 16, while two earlier pages of the same were vacant. He explains that they were left because they got attached to each other. He also admits that at page 15 of the logbook, meter reading is torn. He admits that police had taken into possession this vehicle and informed his Department that this vehicle was involved in the accident. As a result of this, they went to the police station where the police recorded the proceedings. ( 9 ) OMDUTTA Dubey is the Joint Director, agriculture, posted at Vidisha. He states that Mishra had come to Vidisha for discussion about kharif pulses at about 11 a. m. , stayed with him for about 21/2 hours and left for Bhopal at about 2. 30 p. m. He came in Government jeep which had Muslim driver. He did not bring the record with him about his posting at Vidisha. ( 10 ) THE statements recorded above plainly demonstrate that there is serious doubt about the official use of the vehicle for Vidisha. From the statement of K. N. Mishra, Joint Director, Agriculture, it is clear that the logbook entries on which great reliance has been placed by the driver of the jeep, are not satisfactorily explained. It cannot be accepted that two pages of the logbook have been left blank and the entry has been made on the third page, as the pages got attached with each other. Further, the entry with respect to meter reading is also torn. It appears that the entries were incorporated after the taking place of the accident. It cannot be accepted that two pages of the logbook have been left blank and the entry has been made on the third page, as the pages got attached with each other. Further, the entry with respect to meter reading is also torn. It appears that the entries were incorporated after the taking place of the accident. Moreover, the distance between Bhopal and Vidisha is not much so it could be covered in a short time, assuming, but not accepting, that there was some visit of K. N. Mishra, Joint Director, Agriculture, with driver Anwar to that place from Bhopal. Why should the claimant tell lies? She is an educated woman working as an Accountant with Kabra Agro Industries Ltd. , Bhopal and earning handsome amount of salary every month. She met with the accident and noticed the number of the vehicle. Apart from her, Arjunsingh also noticed this jeep involved in the accident. Arjunsingh is not related to the claimant, nor he has any interest to support her. He simply helped her in shifting to the hospital for treatment, because he was available at the site of the accident. Therefore, it is not difficult to hold that it was the jeep bearing registration No. MP 02-434, owned by the State of M. P. (Department of agriculture), driven by Anwar at fast speed which committed the accident by hitting against the moped of the claimant bearing registration No. MP 04-E 3198. As a result of this accident, the moped was damaged and she suffered serious leg injuries. ( 11 ) HAVING come to the conclusion aforesaid, next it is to be considered to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled. At the risk of repetition, it may be recorded that the claimant was 27 years old at the time of accident. She was working as an Accountant in Kabra Agro Industries Ltd. , Bhopal, earning Rs. 2,000 per month. Obviously, she had every chance of improving her career in future. She was unmarried. By this accident, she suffered serious leg injuries. She was subjected to 6-7 operations, but even then her permanent disability has been fixed at 40 per cent. She states that she remained in the hospital for many days and thereafter confined to bed for a number of months. She continues to visit the hospital for treatment since she has not recovered fully. She was subjected to 6-7 operations, but even then her permanent disability has been fixed at 40 per cent. She states that she remained in the hospital for many days and thereafter confined to bed for a number of months. She continues to visit the hospital for treatment since she has not recovered fully. Due to this accident, a number of operations were performed from time to time, as such, she underwent great pain and suffering, apart from loss of service and income. In the totality of circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the claimant in this case. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, after assessing the evidence on record with great pains, we are of the opinion that the award of the Claims tribunal deserves to be modified so that the claimant receives proper and just compensation for the injuries suffered by her. It is well settled that compensation for personal injuries is higher as compared to fatal cases, since in the former case, it is to be utilised by the victim of accident and in the latter, by the legal representatives. It is true that compensation cannot bring back the victim to the stage she enjoyed before the accident, but it would provide her some solace and security for future. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we award the following compensation to the claimant in this case: (i) Disability compensation Rs. 2,00,000 (ii) Pain and suffering (including medical, transport, nursing expenses) Rs. 75,000 (iii) Special diet Rs. 10,000 Total Rs. 2,85,000 The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate allowed by the Tribunal from the date of application till the date of payment which may be made within two months from today. ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, M. A. No. 617 of 1997 (State of M. P. v. Binoti Patnaik) is dismissed. M. A. No. 927 of 1997 (Binoti patnaik v. State of M. P.) is allowed to the extent aforesaid. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .