S. L. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the award of the Second Addl. M. A. C. T. , Balaghat dated 15. 4. 1999 awarding Rs. 55,000 as compensation for the injuries received by him in a road accident that has taken place on 15. 4. 1996, claimant appellant preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the claimant that he is resident of Bhatra Chowki, Balaghat. On 15. 4. 1996 at about 10. 55 a. m. while he was going from Balaghat to Baihar on a motor cycle along with his friend Ram kishore on the road, near Langouro Uttkal nala, the driver of the bus bearing registration no. CPQ 8600 belonging to Chunnilal patle, non-applicant No. 2 and insured with national Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent no. 3, came from the opposite side. The bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. The bus dashed his motor cycle due to which he fell down and the motor cycle fell on his right leg and the claimant received crush injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government hospital, Balaghat, in the offending bus itself. An F. I. R. was lodged by conductor of the bus at Balaghat. The claimant was shifted to hospital where he was examined by Dr. Pawar who found compound fracture and dislocation of right ankle with auto amputation of 4th and 5th toe with loss of 1/3rd of fibula on the person of the claimant. The claimant was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur where he was operated on 16. 5. 1996. He remained admitted in the Medical College and Hospital till 9. 6. 1996. He was re-admitted on 16. 7. 1996 for skin-grafting and was discharged from the Medical College, Nagpur on 23. 7. 1996. Dr. Pawar certified that the claimant suffered 50 per cent permanent disablement. The claimant has pleaded that he is not in a position to move comfortably. He is required to use crutches while moving. ( 3 ) THE claimant averred that before the accident he was engaged in the grocery business out of which he used to earn a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month. In addition to this, he used to take contract of Bhawati Weekly market. He filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,29,000. ( 4 ) NON-APPLICANT Nos. ( 3 ) THE claimant averred that before the accident he was engaged in the grocery business out of which he used to earn a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month. In addition to this, he used to take contract of Bhawati Weekly market. He filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,29,000. ( 4 ) NON-APPLICANT Nos. 1 and 2 the driver and the owner respectively of the offending vehicle did not file the written statement and the case proceeded ex pane against them. The insurance company while admitting the fact that the offending bus was insured with it denied the other allegations in the petition and pleaded that it is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 5 ) CLAIMANT examined himself besides ishwar Dayal, PW 2; Gopal, PW 3 ; Ram shanker, PW 4 and Dr. Shiv Pawar, PW 5, who had treated him at the Government hospital, Balaghat. Documents Exhs. A1 to a31 were marked as exhibits. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents neither any witness was examined nor any document was filed. ( 7 ) THE Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to Patle and awarded a sum of rs. 55,000 as compensation. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal is not a just compensation. He submitted that it is well settled that compensation for personal injury should be higher as compared to fatal cases as in the former cases compensation is utilized by the victims on themselves and they continue to suffer disability in the rest of the life, while in later cases, amount is available to the dependants. The claimant was running a grocery shop and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month. Apart from this, he was also having the contract of weekly market. He suffered crush injury with compound fracture. He was operated Upon and rod was inserted. He took treatment at balaghat and Nagpur and was attended by a number of doctors. He had undergone pain and suffering during treatment. He spent sufficient amount on treatment; on travelling, on special diet, on attendant and on transport. In this background award of compensation of Rs. 55,000 is not an adequate compensation. He took treatment at balaghat and Nagpur and was attended by a number of doctors. He had undergone pain and suffering during treatment. He spent sufficient amount on treatment; on travelling, on special diet, on attendant and on transport. In this background award of compensation of Rs. 55,000 is not an adequate compensation. Claims Tribunal did not award compensation under the heads, mental pain and suffering, future treatment, special diet, attendant, conveyance, etc. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that adequate compensation in the present case should be Rs. 2,00,000. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied on Vijay K. Gupta v. B. G. Khosale, 2005 ACJ 1718 (MP), which is a Division bench judgment of this court and also on ajmeera Govind v. Principal, Arvindo residential School, 2005 ACJ 1436 (AP ). ( 10 ) I have perused the record of the Tribunal particularly the evidence of claimant and Dr. Pawar. I feel that right leg of the claimant was badly damaged. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 55,000 to the claimant without dividing the compensation under various heads. Even though value of the bills for medicines purchased by the claimant is less in amount but from the nature of injuries received by claimant, I am sure that he must have spent more amount. Being in the agony of injuries he would not have kept all the medical bills with him. Looking to the injuries he must have spent much amount in extra nourishment. There was loss of blood. Right leg of the claimant is deformed. Crush injury sustained by the claimant made his life miserable. He was hospitalized for a very long period. Even now the claimant is required to move on crutches. He must have lost zeal and interest in life. It came to light through the evidence of witnesses that he was running a grocery shop and was earning Rs. 2,000 per month and he was also earning by taking the contract of weekly market. Now he is deprived of his earnings. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the award of the tribunal is modified and compensation of rs. 1,75,000 is awarded to the claimant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of enhanced amount. Appeal allowed. .