S. SAMVATSAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by claimant challenging the award dated 19. 2. 2001 passed by the Eighth Additional member Judge, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 57 of 1998, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,38,000 to the claimant for injuries sustained by him in the accident. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant on 4. 4. 1998 at about 10. 45 a. m. was going on scooter bearing No. MP 07-K 4644. He met with an accident with a truck bearing No. MKO 9371, which has resulted into injuries in the left leg of the claimant. His ankle of the left leg was crushed under the wheel of the truck, which has resulted in three fractures. ( 3 ) CLAIMS Tribunal found that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and all the three respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. The claims Tribunal assessed the loss as under: (i ) Permanent disability Rs . 50,000 (ii) Medical treatment Rs . 60,000 (iii) Travelling expenses Rs . 10,000 (iv) Pain and suffering Rs . 10,000 (v) Special diet Rs . 5,000 (vi) Loss of income for three months during which the claimant could not work Rs . 16,800 (vii) Commission charges for examination of doctors Rs . 3,000 It appears that there is some calculation mistake on the part of the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has calculated the above sum as Rs. 1,38,000. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant. According to him, there is 40 per cent permanent disablement in the left leg and, therefore, the amount of compensation should be enhanced. ( 5 ) MR. S. Gajendragadkar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has urged that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for by this court. The insurance company has also filed the cross-objection for reducing the amount of compensation. Mr. ( 5 ) MR. S. Gajendragadkar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has urged that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is called for by this court. The insurance company has also filed the cross-objection for reducing the amount of compensation. Mr. S. Gajendragadkar has submitted that the insurance company has got permission from the Claims Tribunal under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles act to contest the case on quantum as well as on negligence. ( 6 ) AS regards question of negligence is concerned, both the parties did not challenge the finding on the said issue. Hence, only question which has to be determined by this court is amount of compensation. ( 7 ) CLAIMANT in his claim petition has stated that he was working with Chhabra and Sons, Interior Decorators and getting salary of Rs. 4,000 per month. He was also earning Rs. 3,000 per month from cement agency, which was being run by him in the name of Shrestha Enterprises. He was an employee in Pantex Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 4,000 per month from the said company. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal found that there is no document on record to show that claimant was carrying business in the name of Chhabra and Sons for interior decoration and disbelieved the said income of Rs. 4,000 per month. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations made by the claimant in this regard. ( 9 ) AS regards cement agency is concerned, Exhs. P98 and P99 are the two documents on record which show that shrestha Enterprises was registered for carrying cement business and name of the claimant is recorded in the registration as owner, manager or agent. Exh. P99 is the permanent registration of the said firm. The Claims Tribunal found that claimant has not produced any document to prove his income and, therefore disbelieved the contention of claimant that he was earning rs. 3,000 per month from the said cement agency. The documents Exhs. P98, P99 and P100 show that claimant was carrying business of cement agency. It is true that there is no definite evidence about his income from the said agency. Considering this fact, we assess the loss of income of the present claimant from cement agency at Rs. 2,000 per month. The documents Exhs. P98, P99 and P100 show that claimant was carrying business of cement agency. It is true that there is no definite evidence about his income from the said agency. Considering this fact, we assess the loss of income of the present claimant from cement agency at Rs. 2,000 per month. ( 10 ) AS regards the income from Pantex manufacturing Private Ltd. is concerned, there is one document on record Exh. P92, which shows that the claimant was getting salary of Rs. 2,400 per month from the said company. This document is believed by the Tribunal and we have no reason to disbelieve the same. Considering this fact, we assess the total income of the claimant at Rs. 4,500 per month. ( 11 ) AS regards permanent disablement is concerned, the claimant has examined two doctors. Dr. Lokesh Kumar, AW 4, who has treated the claimant and Dr. S. N. Tripathi, AW 5, who has examined the claimant on 1. 7. 2000. According to him, there is 40 per cent permanent disablement in the left leg of the claimant. The claimant is present in the court and we have seen his left ankle. We find that size of the ankle is large and there is still swelling on his ankle. He has come in the court walking with support of a stick. We find that he is facing some difficulty in walking with stick. Now, we have to assess impact of the said disablement on the earning capacity of the claimant. Doctor has certified that there is 40 per cent permanent disablement. Considering the fact that the claimant is carrying business of cement agency and is also working in Pantex Manufacturing Private ltd. , we find loss of earning capacity to the extent of 40 per cent as has been stated by the doctor, is on higher side. As we have observed that claimant can walk with the help of stick and he is facing difficulty in working, considering this fact we assess loss of earning capacity to the tune of 10 per cent. Thus, the loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 450 per month, i. e. , Rs. 5,400 per annum. He was 33 years of age at the time of accident, hence the multiplier of 17 will be applicable. His loss of income comes to Rs. 91,800. Thus, the loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 450 per month, i. e. , Rs. 5,400 per annum. He was 33 years of age at the time of accident, hence the multiplier of 17 will be applicable. His loss of income comes to Rs. 91,800. It has come on record that the claimant was unable to work for a period of 3 months. Hence, he is entitled to Rs. 16,800 as awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income. Apart from above, claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 60,000 towards medical expenses. We find that the claimant has produced the bills Exhs. P2 to P45 and total amount of these bills comes to Rs. 1,77,000. Therefore, we do not find any reason for disallowing the amount. So the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,77,000 for medical expenses. The claimant shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000 as awarded by Tribunal towards travelling expenses, Rs. 10,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000 for special diet and rs. 3,000 towards commission charges for examining the doctors. ( 12 ) THUS, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from rs. 1,38,000 to Rs. 3,13,000 (rupees three lakh thirteen thousand ). Claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the application. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs. Appeal allowed. - .