ORDER N.K. Mody, J. 1. Heard on 1.A. No. 1701/2005 which is an application for dispensing with services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The application is allowed at the risk of the appellant. 2. Being aggrieved by the award dated 12.3.2004 passed in claim Case No. 119/ 2000, the present appeal has been filed. Similarly, against the same award passed in Claim Case No. 110/2004, M.A. No. 1974/2004 has been filed. 3. In M.A. No.1973/2004, the injured is Ajay Kumar while in M.A. No. 1974/ 2004, the injured is Smt. Nirmala Bai. In M.A. No. 1973/2004 the award is for a sum of Rs. 11,000 and in M.A. No. 1974/2004 award is for a sum of Rs. 40,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. The break-up of the awarded amount in both are as under: In M.A. No. 1973/2004 Rs. 1,000 -- towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000 -- towards mental pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000 -- towards physical pain and sufferings In M.A. No. 1974/2004 Rs. 20,000 -- towards medical expenses Rs. 10,000 -- towards physical pain and sufferings Rs. 10,000 -- towards mental pain and sufferings 5. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that in the matter of Ajay Kumar, there is fracture of cievical bone in the left leg of the appellant. Looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount is on the lower side. 6. After taking into consideration the evidence on record, it appears that no amount has been awarded towards general damages, towards conveyance and also towards special diet. Hence, the amount of award is further enhanced by Rs. 20,000. Thus, the total amount for which the appellant shall be entitled is Rs. 31,000. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application, M.A. No. 1974/2004 7. In this case, it is submitted that appellant sustained fracture in Humerus bone of right hand. It is submitted that there was permanent disability of 34% in the right hand. Appellant was hospitalized for a period of one month. 8. Learned Counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Mannulal v. Chhagan Lal Chauan and Ors. wherein a sum of Rs. 1,72,903 was awarded for fracture in right leg of the appellant resulting in permanent disability of 28%. 9. Appellant was hospitalized for a period of one month. 8. Learned Counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in Mannulal v. Chhagan Lal Chauan and Ors. wherein a sum of Rs. 1,72,903 was awarded for fracture in right leg of the appellant resulting in permanent disability of 28%. 9. Learned Counsel for respondent submits that the law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court (supra) is not at all applicable in the present case. In that case, the appellant was hospitalized for a period of six months while in the present case, appellant was hospitalized for a period of one month only. It is further submitted that in the present case, no permanent disability has been assessed by the Court. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that for how many days appellant was hospitalized. Dr. Smt. Kiran Bala Chaturvedi who has examined the appellant was not the Orthopaedic. Dr. Vijay Singh who has issued the disability certificate to the appellant was not the treating doctor and has examined after more than a year of the accident. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of'Manoharsingh v. Sheikh Nawi and Ors. in M.A. No. 1321/ 2000 posted on 24.6.2005 wherein the Single Bench of this Court has observed that merely because the doctor who treated the appellant was not examined it cannot be said that the nature and accident of injuries cannot be ascertained. The injuries can be ascertained by any qualified doctor after looking and examining the prescription, X-Ray report. X-Ray plates and the injured himself. 11. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Balu Singh v. Himmat Singh Thakur and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) DMP 328. where Division Bench of this Court has observed that: . In motor accident cases it is rather difficult to procure the evidence of those doctors who had actually treated the patient as most of the time either they are not available or even if available they are not ready and willing to come to Court to get their evidence recorded. Under these circumstances the claimant cannot be allowed to be left in the lurch. He then get himself examined by a doctor who is ready and willing to come to the Court. Under these circumstances the claimant cannot be allowed to be left in the lurch. He then get himself examined by a doctor who is ready and willing to come to the Court. On account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears, that Dr. N.K. Gupta had examined the appellant at a later stage. But that alone cannot be a ground to ignore his evidence. 12. In the present case, the accident took place on 12.3.2004. Dr. Smt. Kiran Bala Chaturvedi A.W. 1 was posted at the Primary Health Centre, Thandla as Medical Officer has examined the appellant and has submitted the report Exhibit P/2. Thereafter on 17.1.2003. Dr. Vijay Singh Ninrama, A.W. 2 has examined the appellant and found that there was a complaint of pain and lesser movement of the right hand of the appellant. A-W. 2, Dr. Vijay Singh Ninrama, further stated that there were lesser movement of 15 degree of elbow of right hand, While keeping the hand straight it was lesser straight by 45 degree. It is further stated that there was permanent disability of 30%. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards medical expenses and further sum of Rs. 20,000 towards physical and mental pain and sufferings. It appears that no amount has been awarded towards permanent disability, towards special diet and towards attender. 13. After, taking into consideration all the facts and evidence on record, appellant is entitled for enhancement of Rs. 25,000 which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 14. With the aforesaid modifications, both the appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.