JUDGMENT 1. - Through this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant claimant seeks to modify the award dated 19.11.1994 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 42,000. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award and the record of the case. 3. On 4.4.1990 at about 10 a.m., the claimant appellant and Ram Sahai were going from Tonk Fatak to Malviya Nagar on scooter No. RJ-14A-2274. The claimant appellant was driving the scooter, while Ram Sahai was on the pillion seat. When they reached near Jaipur Diary, a truck No. HYG 3003 hit the scooter, as a result of which the appellant and Ram Sahai fell down and sustained injuries. The scooter was also badly damaged. 4. The appellant claimant filed a claim petition, claiming Rs. 3,53,000 for the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the Tribunal, on consideration of evidence and material awarded a total claim of Rs. 42,000. 5. It appears from the record that appellant had sustained 3 injuries in the accident, one was on scalp for which he was operated, second was on chin which was described as simple and the third injury was on left thigh and fracture of femer bone was also detected. A.W. 6 Dr. Sohan Singh Sankhla has deposed that because of injuries, the leg of injured appellant became short by 2 cms and the percentage of disability was to the extent of 10%. 6. A glance at the award shows that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,000 on account of leave for a period of 61/2 months @ Rs. 2,065 p.a. As was disclosed in the salary certificate, Ex. 12, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that since the appellant was a Government employee, the expenditure incurred by him on treatment has already been reimbursed. It further appears that the Tribunal having found that appellant continued to be in Government service and there was no deduction in his salary, did not award any sum for loss of income. 7. There cannot be any dispute that because of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, the appellant had to undergo operation of head and his leg became short by 2 cms. 7. There cannot be any dispute that because of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, the appellant had to undergo operation of head and his leg became short by 2 cms. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries, the operation undergone and the long period of treatment, I feel that the amount of Rs. 42,000 awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and needs to be reasonably enhanced. In my considered view the ends of justice would be met if the amount of Rs. 29,000 awarded for injuries is enhanced to Rs. 50,000. Accordingly, the appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount of Rs. 21,000 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of claim petition, till realisation. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 21,000 with the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of this judgment. On depositing the same, the Tribunal shall disburse the aforesaid sum to the appellant. 8. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Tribunal stands modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******