A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 9/12. 10. 2001 passed in Claim Case No. 13 of 1999 by the XII Member, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Indore. ( 2 ) IN this case accident is admitted. The rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle is also admitted. It is also admitted that the appellant received injuries in the said accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application, against which this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Harish Gilke, the learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. P. Mitha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 insurance company and perused the record. No one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the claimant Shyamlal, who is aged about 45 years, received a fracture in his right leg and injuries in left leg and has also received head injury and 18 stitches were applied. There was also a fracture in the wrist of the hand. He remained hospitalised in Gupta Nursing home for 17 days. The claimant is working as an agriculturist and also a milk seller and it was deposed by him that he was earning five to six thousand rupees per month. Medical bills were produced from Exhs. P-5 to P-12. The claimant also examined Dr. Sharda as PW 3. Dr. Sharda also deposed that the claimant received comminuted fracture in femur bone, he was operated and nailing and plating was done and even after the operation, his leg could not be cured and his leg has also become short by one inch and is also suffering from other deformities in leg. Dr. Sharda has further deposed that it is a case where the claimant has suffered 38 per cent permanent disability, medical certificate to this effect is Exh. P-23. He is not normal and unable to walk and sit properly. Though Dr. Sharda is not a treating doctor but he had examined Shyamlal before issuing certificate Exh. P-23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. P-23. He is not normal and unable to walk and sit properly. Though Dr. Sharda is not a treating doctor but he had examined Shyamlal before issuing certificate Exh. P-23. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 for permanent disability towards general damages and has also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000 for medical treatment, special diet and also for conveyance charges. Thus, total amount comes to Rs. 52,000 but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 50,000. The submission of Mr. Gilke is that there is a calculation mistake. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record and the evidence on record and also the medical evidence on record, I find that claims Tribunal has not properly awarded compensation for permanent,. disablement. Thus, looking to the permanent disability and due to shortening of leg and loss in the working capacity, this amount is on lower side. Therefore, it is enhanced from rs. 40,000 to Rs. 60,000 for damages. The tribunal has also not properly awarded amount for pain and suffering. Looking to the period of hospitalisation of 17 days and treatment for 4 months, the awarded amount of Rs. 2,000 in this head is on lower side. This amount is enhanced to rs. 5,000. Admittedly the claimant remained hospitalised for a period of 17 days in a private nursing home. The claimant has produced the bills for Rs. 8,000. Therefore, the amount in this head is also on lower side. Looking to the fact that claimant was operated and rod was inserted, this amount is enhanced from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 20,000. It has also come in the evidence of the claimant that due to the injuries he could not work for one year; though he is an agriculturist and also a milk seller. Therefore, this period is considered and if it is found that he was earning Rs. 3,000 per month, though he has deposed that he was earning five to six thousand rupees per month but being agriculturist he has not produced any evidence of income. Therefore, his income is taken into consideration as Rs. 3,000 per month and for a period of one year a sum of Rs. 36,000 for the loss of work is awarded in this head. Therefore, his income is taken into consideration as Rs. 3,000 per month and for a period of one year a sum of Rs. 36,000 for the loss of work is awarded in this head. The claimant has further deposed that he is unable to work properly because of the injuries and his treatment is going on because the rod is still inside the leg. Thus, a further sum of Rs. 10,000 is awarded for future treatment. ( 6 ) IN the result this appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 52,000 to Rs. 1,31,000. This enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i. e. , 13. 2. 1997 till the date of its payment. The insurance company is directed to pay the said amount within a period of two months, after deducting the amount already paid. Record be returned. Appeal allowed. .