SHANTANU KEMKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the award dated 20. 10. 2004 passed by Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Multai, District Betul, in Claim Case No. 101 of 2000. ( 2 ) AS per the claim petition the appellant a patient of polio was going on his tricycle on 22. 5. 2000. When his tricycle reached near Madina Masjid at Multai, a motor cycle No. MP 05-9271 driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently came from behind and dashed the appellant's tricycle. As a result of which the appellant fell down and the motor cycle ran over his right leg. The appellant sustained fracture of his right femur and his four teeth were broken. ( 3 ) THE respondents opposed the claim petition and denied the occurrence of accident. It was stated that the appellant was already a disabled person and, therefore, the injuries cannot be said to be caused due to the alleged accident. ( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence and held that the appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in fracture of femur causing 30 per cent permanent disability and his 4 teeth were broken. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 5,000 for medical expenses, special diet, transportation expenses, Rs. 5,000 for physical pain and mental agony and Rs. 30,000 for permanent disability.) ( 5 ) MR. A. D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. He also contended that since the appellant was already a disabled person, further disability to the extent of 30 per cent of his right leg has caused 100 per cent permanent disability to the appellant. ( 6 ) MR. Dinesh Koushal, learned counsel appearing for insurer has supported the award and has contended that the award being just and proper, there is no need for any enhancement. ( 7 ) IN order to prove the injury appellant kachru, AW 1, has deposed that he suffered grievous injuries in the said accident and his four teeth were broken. He also stated that he was a cook working at Puja hotel where he used to cook vegetarian and non-vegetarian food and was getting rs. 100 per day. ( 7 ) IN order to prove the injury appellant kachru, AW 1, has deposed that he suffered grievous injuries in the said accident and his four teeth were broken. He also stated that he was a cook working at Puja hotel where he used to cook vegetarian and non-vegetarian food and was getting rs. 100 per day. He further stated that apart from salary he was getting meals in the said hotel. Dr. Yogesh Garhekar, AW 3, stated that he treated the appellant on 22. 5. 2000 and applied plaster on his right leg. He stated that the appellant's femur of right leg was fractured. He assessed the total disability in the right leg to the extent of 30 per cent. Deepak Pandey, AW 4, the owner of Deepak Hotel deposed that he used to pay Rs. 100 per day to the appellant who used to cook the food in his hotel. He also stated that the appellant used to cook vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. He further deposed that after the accident the appellant has become disabled and cannot work. Dr. V. S. Shrivastava, Dental Surgeon has stated that the appellant was admitted in District Hospital, Betul on 23. 5. 2000. His four teeth were broken and there was disfigurement of his face. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid evidence we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. In our view, the appellant is entitled for rs. 20,000 for medical expenses, special diet and expenses of attendant Rs. 30,000 for physical pain and suffering. Rs. 30,000 awarded by Claims Tribunal for permanent disability of 30 per cent is maintained. In addition for loss of 4 teeth a further sum of Rs. 20,000 is awarded. Thus, the total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 is awarded. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment. ( 9 ) THUS, with the aforesaid modification the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .