VERMA SETH, J. ( 1 ) ON account of a road accident the appellant who sustained personal injury, filed claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents. 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 49 of 1995, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,23,000. 75. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation as according to him the amount awarded by the tribunal is meagre looking to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. ( 2 ) ON 20. 12. 1993 while the appellant was going to Ujjain he met with an accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus which was being driven by respondent No. 2. The bus belonged to the respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 3. On a close scrutiny of the evidence the Tribunal found that respondent No. 2 was responsible for causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and as such the tribunal passed the award against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 only. This finding of the Tribunal is not challenged before us. ( 3 ) AS per the submission of the learned counsel, the appellant sustained loss of rs. 1,50,000 as he could not carry out the agricultural operation. It was also stated that the appellant used to earn Rs. 200 per day by selling milk. The Tribunal found that the loss of income claimed by the appellant is exaggerated and in the opinion of the Tribunal income of the appellant could be assessed at Rs. 1,500 per month. Appellant also stated before the Tribunal that on account of the accident he sustained fracture in his right leg (femur bone)and he was required to undergo prolonged treatment not only in the Choithram Hospital but also in the Verma Union Hospital. Dr. Rajat Verma has also been examined by claimant and according to Dr. Verma there is shortening of leg by 6 cm. The appellant could not walk properly due to stiffness in the knee joint and there is nonunion of fracture bone. The appellant also could not squat on floor. The appellant also could not undertake physical labour and would be required to undergo further operation as there is no possibility of union of fractured bone in the natural course. Dr. Verma in his certificate, Exh. The appellant also could not squat on floor. The appellant also could not undertake physical labour and would be required to undergo further operation as there is no possibility of union of fractured bone in the natural course. Dr. Verma in his certificate, Exh. P-7, has stated that the permanent disability suffered by the appellant was to the tune of 95 per cent. After one operation Dr. Verma has given another certificate Exh. P-204 in which the permanent disability sustained by the appellant has been stated to be 60 per cent. ( 4 ) AFTER going through the record and the evidence it is clear that the appellant sustained severe personal injury as a result he could not walk properly. He could not undertake any strenuous labour and naturally will have to depend upon the help of others to earn his livelihood. The appellant was also required to undergo prolonged treatment. Despite prolonged treatment there was non-union of fractured bone. ( 5 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case in our opinion a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 would be just and proper compensation payable to the appellant by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the application till it is actually paid to the appellant. Respondent No. 3 shall bear costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. C. C. to be given to the parties as per rules within seven days. Appeal partly allowed. .