JUDGMENT Kulshrestha, J. -- Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisen vide Award dated 18.11.1998 passed in Claim Case No. 38/96, the claimant has preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement. It was not in dispute before the Tribunal that Truck bearing registration No. CII 1567 was insured with the respondent No.5 Oriental Insurance Company and that the bus bearing registration No. MP 09 S0125 was insured with respondent No.6 New India Insurance Company and the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident i.e. on 7.6.1993. According to the case of the claimant, while on 7.6.1993 at 9.30 p.m. she was travelling in the Video Coach bus bearing No. MP-09-S0125 from Sagar to Raisen, near village Murpar, there was collision with an oncoming Truck CII 1567 on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and the bus, both. As a result of the accident, she sustained a fracture in her right hand, lost her teeth and sustained various other injuries on her hands and legs and was hospitalised in Dipak Nursing Home for 15 days. She was, on account of her injuries, prevented from helping her husband in the business of 'chat thela' and thus suffered a loss of Rs. 14,000/-. In addition, she spent on medicine and X-Ray Rs. 11,000/-, in Choithram Hospital Rs. 5,000/-, in Bareli she spent Rs. 2,000/-, in Indore she spent Rs. 2,500/- and she gave Rs. 7,000/- for treatment to Dr. Batra. The claimant, therefore, claimed this amount together with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for permanent disability and Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- was claimed together with 18% interest. The Claims Tribunal, on evaluation of the evidence before it, has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of the application, to the claimant. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the claimant has filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that there was evidence before the Tribunal that the claimant was hospitalised and her hand was kept in plaster because of the fracture with the result, she could not render assistance to her husband in his business and for this period the Tribunal has not adequately compensated the claimant. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that there was evidence before the Tribunal that the claimant was hospitalised and her hand was kept in plaster because of the fracture with the result, she could not render assistance to her husband in his business and for this period the Tribunal has not adequately compensated the claimant. Learned counsel has further submitted that compensation has not been awarded for the expenses incurred on medical treatment and for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has observed that the claimant had sustained a simple fracture in her had which normally takes 3 to 4 months to unite and, therefore, she could not be believed that she was prevented by the said fracture from preparing the 'chat' for her husband's business for a period of two to two and a half years. However, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- awarded on this count does not appear to be adequate. For the loss of work for a period of about 4 to 5 months, the claimant deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/-. Accordingly, the amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. The claimant had made a claim of Rs. 11,000/- towards the amount spent on treatment in Dipak Nursing Home, Rs. 2,000/- in Bareli, Rs. 5,000/- "in Choithram Hospital and Rs. 9,500/- on treatment in Dr. Shah's and Dr. Batra's clinic. She also submitted cash memo Ex. P-25 to Ex. P-51 with regard to the purchase of medicines and prescriptions Ex. P-21 and Ex. P-24. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for medicine. However, the Tribunal has merely assumed that she must have spent that much amount in the case of fracture of bone. Though the applicant has not furnished proof of having spent the various amounts, yet keeping in view the cash memo submitted by her and the amount she may have spent on her treatment for a long time, she deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the amount spent on treatment. The claimant made a claim of Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and physical pain. The claimant received an injury near her eye, on her thigh and on her hand. In the right hand, she sustained a fracture in respect whereof the treatment continued for several days. She, therefore, suffered physical and mental pain and inconvenience of undergoing the treatment. The claimant made a claim of Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and physical pain. The claimant received an injury near her eye, on her thigh and on her hand. In the right hand, she sustained a fracture in respect whereof the treatment continued for several days. She, therefore, suffered physical and mental pain and inconvenience of undergoing the treatment. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony. The claimant deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. The claimant has been awarded Rs. 2,000 for special diet and for expenses on conveyance for treatment. The amount appears to be on the lower side. Considering that, as per the claimant, she had gone to various places for treatment, the amount deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, the applicant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and interest thereon at the rate of 12% from the date of the application. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned A ward is modified and it is directed that the claimant shall be entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% thereon from the date of the application i.e. from 18.11.1993. Non-applicant No.1, 2 & 6 shall be, collectively and severally, liable to pay half the amount of compensation while the remaining half shall be payable by the non-applicant No.3, 4 & 5, collectively and severally. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.