P. C. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) ON 6. 3. 1997 at about 8 p. m. Hifajat Ali, claimant, a pedestrian, sustained injuries in a scooter accident. As per claimant this scooter No. MP 10-B 984 belonged to Ayesha Sultana, the owner, who happens to be an Assistant Surgeon in Ayurvedic Hospital, Khargone. As per claimant the scooter was driven by Rafik, juvenile son of Ayesha Sultana, rashly and negligently. On report of the claimant, the police had prosecuted Ajijurehman Sheikh, respondent No. 1, a private doctor, practising at Sendhwa, the husband of Ayesha sultana, under sections 279 and 337 of the indian Penal Code. The Claims Tribunal below held that the offending scooter was being driven by Rafik, respondent No. 2, the juvenile son, rashly and negligently and awarded in all Rs. 33,000 for permanent disability and mental and physical pain and suffering, Rs. 7,597 + Rs. 920 + rs. 5,681 = Rs. 14,198 as medical expenses rs. 11,800 as loss of salary of two months, in all Rs. 56,000 in lump sum with interest at the rate of 15 per cent in case the awarded amount was not paid within 2 months of the award. Besides this Rs. 1,000 were awarded as advocate's fees also. ( 2 ) HIFAJAT Ali, claimant, filed M. A. No. 545 of 2001 for enhancement of compensation while Ajijurehman, respondent No. 1, the husband, Ayesha Sultana, respondent No. 3, the scooter owner and Rafik, respondent No. 2, scooter driver, filed m. A. No. 250 of 2001 claiming that Rafik, respondent No. 2 had not been driving the scooter and no accident was caused with the scooter of Ayesha Sultana, as alleged by the claimant. ( 3 ) FIRST I proceed to decide as to the liability. Hifajat Ali Saiyed, AW. 1, the claimant, has deposed that he was dashed by scooter No. MP 10-B 894, such scooter was driven on wrong side, time was about 8 p. m. , night had set in. There were also several persons at the spot. Hamid Khan and Ayub Khan, AW 2, were there, they had caught the scooter driver. Hifajat AH, aw 1, has claimed that at 3 a. m. he had seen Ayesha Sultana, respondent No. 3, her son, respondent No. 2 and Ramzan, aw 4. There were also several persons at the spot. Hamid Khan and Ayub Khan, AW 2, were there, they had caught the scooter driver. Hifajat AH, aw 1, has claimed that at 3 a. m. he had seen Ayesha Sultana, respondent No. 3, her son, respondent No. 2 and Ramzan, aw 4. They apologized that the child had hurt by mistake which clearly points out towards Rafik, respondent No. 2, as the scooter driver. Both Ayub Khan, AW 2 and Ramzan, AW 4, had been positive on oath that son of Ayesha Sultana, respondent No. 2, had been driving the offending, scooter. These three witnesses have been cross-examined at great length but there has been nothing material either to disbelieve or discard their statements. It is noteworthy that in the report to police, name of the driver of the scooter was not taken and the police had prosecuted Ajiju-rehman sheikh, respondent No. 1, husband of Ayehsa Sultana. Ayesha Sultana, NAW 1 and Ajijurehman Sheikh, NAW 2, both wife and husband were examined before the Tribunal and have denied that Ajijurehman, NAW 2, was driving the offending scooter at the time of the accident. Both claimed that keys of scooter remain with ajijurehman Sheikh, NAW 2, when he goes out and son Rafik, respondent No. 2, does not drive the scooter. However, Rafik, respondent No. 2, is a young man and college going student, he has not been produced before the court to rebut the case of the claimant though he was made a party to the claim. He has not dared to face the cross-examination of the advocate for the claimant. In all these facts of the case the conclusion drawn by Tribunal that Rafik, respondent No. 2, the son had been driving the offending vehicle scooter rashly and negligently at the time of accident whereby hifajat Ali, AW 1, the claimant was injured has neither been erroneous nor can be faulted. Thus, appeal by Ayesha Sultana and her son failed. However, Ajijurehman sheikh, husband of Ayesha Sultana, the respondent No. 3 and father of Rafik, respondent No. 2, the scooter driver, was not clearly responsible for the accident and thus no award can be given against him. M. A. No. 250 of 2001 is partly allowed to that extent. ( 4 ) NOW I proceed to examine the quantum of compensation. M. A. No. 250 of 2001 is partly allowed to that extent. ( 4 ) NOW I proceed to examine the quantum of compensation. Hifajat Ali, AW 1 had been a middle aged person posted as headmaster in a primary school. As per m. L. C. report, Exh. P3, he was taken to hospital with bleeding from his nose, swelling in the left leg with abrasion 3. 5 cm x 5 cm. On X-ray photograph being taken a fracture of left fibula bone was noted vide exh. P4. Hifajat Ali, AW 1, has claimed that his left leg was fractured. His head was injured, he was bleeding from nose. He was examined in Government Hospital, khargone, then he was treated at Khandwa by Dr. Dilip Jain. He remained admitted in khandwa hospital between 3. 4. 1997 and 23. 4. 1997. His leg was operated upon, rod was inserted and was plastered which continued for about 8 months during this time he had to go from Bisthan, district Khar-gone to Khandwa 8 times. He remained admitted for 28 days when the rod was taken out by operation. He remained on leave between 26. 3. 1997 and 22. 10. 1997 at Khandwa, his 2 sons and wife remained there to attend him during the period he remained admitted. He had submitted prescription for medicines, Exhs. P6 to P24, observation sheets from Exhs. P25 to P38. He has submitted bills and vouchers for purchase of medicines, Exh. P39 to P71, p77 to P86 in all totalling to Rs. 21,268. However, the Tribunal has awarded only rs. 14,198 on this count. The Tribunal has discarded Exhs. P77 and P80 holding that there has been duplication. However, careful scrutiny would show that these bills pertain to different period and the amount under both the bills is allowed. Thus, in all amount of Rs. 21,268 has to be allowed as medicine expenses. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has allowed Rs. 33,000 for loss or diminution in amenities of normal life and for mental pain and suffering though it had held that the extent of disability had been 24 per cent. It is noteworthy that the appellant had been in government service, he continued in that service even after the accident. Thus, no permanent loss of earnings has been proved. 33,000 for loss or diminution in amenities of normal life and for mental pain and suffering though it had held that the extent of disability had been 24 per cent. It is noteworthy that the appellant had been in government service, he continued in that service even after the accident. Thus, no permanent loss of earnings has been proved. Yet there has certainly been diminution in enjoyment of normal amenities of life and thus award of rs. 33,000 on that count is not improper. ( 6 ) AS per Exh. P91, the appellant had been on leave between 27. 3. 1997 and 22. 10. 1997, his salary being Rs. 6,432 per month as per certificate Exh. P90. The learned Claims Tribunal has allowed only rs. 11,800 as leave salary for two months which has not been proper. Certainly, the appellant was entitled for compensation for the loss of leave in view of Yashpal gaur v. Meena Suri, 1995 ACJ 480 (MP)and Anoop Singh v. Inder Singh, 1987 ACJ 84 (MP), the principle is so well settled. Thus any detailed discussion is not necessary. Had the appellant not been injured he might have taken his earned leave for other more useful purpose. Thus the appellant is entitled to get leave salary for six months and 25 days at the rate of Rs. 6,432 p. m. = rs. 43,952. ( 7 ) THE Claims Tribunal had not awarded any amount for special diet, travelling expenses and costs of attendant. Certainly, the appellant had been resident of village visthan in district Khargone, he was treated at Khandwa, where he remained admitted for a long time. In my considered opinion, the appellant was entitled to Rs. 10,000 as compensation on these counts. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum after two months of the award. Actually the interest should have been awarded from the date of claim, i. e. , 12. 8. 1997 in view of Chameli wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1985 ACJ 645 (SC); Badri Prasad v. P. P. Sachdeva, 1996 (2) MPWN 203. Such interest can be awarded even if claimant does not claim in view of Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh, 1990 ACJ 777 (SC ). Merely because there had been delay in decision, the claimant could not have been deprived of the interest pendente lite. Such interest can be awarded even if claimant does not claim in view of Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh, 1990 ACJ 777 (SC ). Merely because there had been delay in decision, the claimant could not have been deprived of the interest pendente lite. It is noteworthy that on 3. 9. 1998 and 29. 1. 1999 all the witnesses of the claimant had been present and on 3. 4. 1998 two of the witnesses were examined. On 2. 9. 1999 two witnesses were present but only one was examined. Perusal of the order-sheet of the tribunal clearly shows that the claimant had not been guilty of any undue delay in decision. Thus, depriving him for the interest during the pendency of the claim had been unreasonable. Actually, the Tribunal should have awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum since the date of claim, i. e. , 12. 10. 1997 to the date of payment instead the interest awarded at the rate of 15 per cent per annum after two months of the award. ( 9 ) M. A. No. 545 of 2001 is partly allowed. Ayesha Sultana, respondent No. 3 and her son Rafik, respondent No. 2, would in all pay Rs. 49,222 as enhanced compensation besides the compensation already awarded. They would further pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum since the date of claim, i. e. , 12. 9. 1997 on the whole of the compensation amount (already awarded by Tribunal and enhanced by this court) till the date of payment. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. .