Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. In this appeal, challenge is to award dated 4.8.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to the claimant (appellant herein) along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment, for the injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.7.1987. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 26.7.1987 claimant, Ibqal Singh, was going on cycle to his village Ugala from Barara and was behind tractor bearing registration No.HRX-1939 driven by Sukhjinder Singh and on the Margad of said tractor his brother namely Jaspal Singh and Paramjit Singh were sitting. It is stated that one Lajja Ram was also following on his cycle. According to the claimant-appellant, when the tractor reached near Ravi Filling Station, at about 9.15 P.M. a bus bearing registration No.HRE-8413 driven by Gurnam Singh, respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner came at a very fast speed from the opposite direction and struck against the tractor, as a result of which the rear wheel of the tractor got broken. As the driver of the bus could not control the bus, it also struck against the cycles of the claimant and Lajja Ram due to which both of them received injuries. After causing the accident, the driver of the bus ran away after leaving the bus at the spot. This occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Jaspal Singh, Sukhjinder Singh and Paramjit Singh. On account of injuries sustained, the claimani was taken to Primary Health Centre, Barara, in a truck from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and he remained admitted there from 27.7.1987 to 4.8.1987. A case under Section 279/33T/427 I.P.C. was registered against Gurnam Singh (respondent No. 1). Claimant submitted that on account of injuries, he lost his speech and was unable to move about. Claimant then filed petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Ambala, for the grant of compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident. 3. Respondent No. 1, Gurnam, Singh, bus driver, did not put in appearance and therefore, was proceeded against ex parte. Claimant then filed petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Ambala, for the grant of compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident. 3. Respondent No. 1, Gurnam, Singh, bus driver, did not put in appearance and therefore, was proceeded against ex parte. However, Haryana Roadways in their written statement admitted the accident but with the plea that respondent No. 1, Gurnam Singh, was not authorised to ply the bus and that he was driving the same beyond the scope of his duties. It was stated that he is since absconding and has not reported for duty since 6.7.1987 and in this regard, a departmental enquiry is pending against him. It has been stated that they (Haryana Roadways) are not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their issues. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the award in the manner indicated above. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has approached this Court by way of present appeal. 6. There is no cross-appeal by the 1 Haryana Roadways. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has confined his argument for enhancement in compensation. On the contrary, learned State Counsel has argued that the compensation is just and reasonable keeping in view the value of money at the relevant time 9. Arguments have been scanned. In cases of personal injuries, precise and mathematical calculation of an amount of compensation is hardly obtainable. However, the Tribunal has to make an endeavour in the light of evidence on record to see that the injured claimant is awarded an amount of compensation which ought to be just and reasonable. The award should neither be luxurious nor pernicious. Appellant-claimant had three injuries on his person including on the right frontal region and remained under treatment in PGI Chandigarh from 27.7.1987 to 4.8.1987. He was treated by PW-5 Dr. Ashish Pathak, whose statement suggests that upon x-ray of the head injuries, a fracture of right temporal region was found and that C.T. scan also showed enlarged extra dural hamatoma over the right frontal region with slight mid-line shift. He also found minimal contusion of the right frontal temporal region. Claimant in his statement has also stated that he spent Rs,20/25,000/- on the treatment and conveyance charges. However, the learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs. He also found minimal contusion of the right frontal temporal region. Claimant in his statement has also stated that he spent Rs,20/25,000/- on the treatment and conveyance charges. However, the learned Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 5,000/- clubbing the amount of compensation for pain and suffering and expenses on treatment. To my mind, the compensation awarded is meager. No doubt, there is no evidence of any disability or impairment in his mental faculty or loss of memory but at the same time it cannot be ignored that he had a fracture in his right temporal region which upon C.T. scan was also found to have an enlarged extra dural hamatoma for which he was hospitalized for 8-9 days. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained and the hospitalization, claimant deserves compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of pain and suffering and mental shock. Of course, there are no cash memos, or bills to prove the expenses qua the treatment the claimant had taken from PGI Chandigarh where treatment is comparatively much cheaper than private hospitals, but despite that certain amount of expenses are required to be incurred on medicines, tests, etc. Claimant is thus, allowed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on this count. Expenses on transport/conveyance and special died too cannot be ignored. Claimant rather has examined Hari Singh as PW-3 who stated that he had taken the claimant to PGI Chandigarh thrice and charged Rs. 450/- per trip Therefore, a sum of Rs. 1000/- is allowed under this head. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on account of loss of.business is adequate and thus, no interference is called for. Claimant is thus, held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 14,000/- i.e. Rs. 8,000/- over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, 10. Coming to the rate of interest, previously it used to be 12 per cent, however, in the recent years the bank rates have been considerably reduced and the rate of interest is being awarded at the rate of 7-1/2 per cent in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. (2005-2)140 P.L.R. 650. (2005-2)140 P.L.R. 650. Therefore, in that back-drop of the situation, the enhanced compensation in this case shall carry interest at the flat rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 11. In view of the above, the impugned award stands modified in the manner indicated above. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.