JUDGMENT This misc. appeal is directed against the award dated 11.3.1988 in Claim Case No. 25/83 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara awarding a sum of Rs. 3,000/- under section 1l0A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Admittedly, the claimant/appellant suffered a fracture of 5th metacorpal bone in motor accident. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 29.1.1983 the claimant-appellant was travelling by Truck No. MPJ 7133. When the said truck stopped at village Kosmi at about 4 p.m., the claimant/appellant got down from the truck, and was dashed against a Jeep No. DED 3662. The said jeep was being driven at the time of accident by respondent No.1 and was owned by respondent No.2. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 is the insurer of aforementioned offending vehicle. The claimant-appellant had filed a petition under section 110A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was held by the learned Claims Tribunal that the' accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by respondent No. 1. It was, however, held that the claimant/appellant has not proved that he suffered permanent disability. Therefore, considering the pain and suffering the loss of business an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded as compensation in his favour. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the appellant suffered permanent disability and that the amount of compensation as above is too low. So far as permanent disability is concerned, the claimant/appellant had examined Dr. S.K. Hazra, AW 3 and Dr. C.S. Gupta, AW 4. Both the above witnesses stated, that the appellant suffered fracture of 5th metacorpal bone. However, both the them have admitted that they are not in a position to state that the appellant had suffered permanent disability. There is no other evidence to show that the appellant suffered permanent disability on account of the said accident. Therefore, the finding in the above regard of the Claims Tribunal is justified and is affirmed. So far as compensation is concerned, it appears that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for about three days to undergo treatment as would be clear from the Discharge Certificate Ex. D-1. It also appears that the appellant was also required to take follow up treatment as has been stated by Dr. S.K. Hazra, A W 3. So far as compensation is concerned, it appears that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for about three days to undergo treatment as would be clear from the Discharge Certificate Ex. D-1. It also appears that the appellant was also required to take follow up treatment as has been stated by Dr. S.K. Hazra, A W 3. In the circumstances, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced to certain extent. After considering the nature of injury, the treatment taken by the appellant, loss of earning and the mental pain and suffering undergone by him, the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is ·allowed. The amount of compensation grantee by the impugned award is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). Interest thereon shall be payable at the rate of 12% (Twelve percent) from the date of application till payment thereof. The amount already paid shall be adjusted from the amount awarded as above.