S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. ( 1 ) BY this appeal the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation granted by Thirteenth Member, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 2 of 2003 vide award dated 14. 7. 2003. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 12. 1. 2001. According to his case, on that date he was proceeding on his Luna bearing registration no. MP 09-GC 1657. While he was going on A. B. Road, there was collision with an oncoming truck bearing registration no. MP 07-N 1157 which was being driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. Report of the incident was made at P. S. , Mhow and a case was lodged against the driver of the truck. The owner of truck was respondent No. 2 while the truck was insured with respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) IT was held that in the accident the appellant sustained injuries on his head, hand and both legs and there was rupture of his vein. He was taken to Getwell Hospital at Mhow and after primary treatment he was shifted to M. Y. Hospital, Indore. At M. Y. Hospital, Indore doctors had advised for amputation of his leg, in view of his critical condition but to save his limb, he shifted to Choithram Hospital, Indore where several operations were performed and he had remained hospitalised for a month and half. According to the appellant he was treated by several experts in the field. He was in the business of tailoring but on account of his confinement to bed he could not carry out the vocation. In the circumstances, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000. ( 3 ) THE driver and owner of the truck remained absent despite service and the case proceeded ex parte against them. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, had contested the matter and refuted the claim of the claimant. It also took the plea that truck driver did not have a valid and effective licence at the time of accident. ( 4 ) ON the basis of evidence adduced, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver in which the appellant sustained permanent disability and for that purpose he was entitled to compensation in the sum of rs. 1,50,000. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of amount, appellant has filed the present appeal. ( 4 ) ON the basis of evidence adduced, the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver in which the appellant sustained permanent disability and for that purpose he was entitled to compensation in the sum of rs. 1,50,000. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of amount, appellant has filed the present appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards medical expenses and Rs. 9,000 towards loss of income for 2 months, Rs. 30,000 towards permanent disability and Rs. 11,000 towards pain and suffering which is grossly inadequate, in view of the injuries and permanent disablement suffered by the appellant. ( 6 ) MR. S. V. Dandwate, counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 3, submits that the appellant being a tailor can do his work of tailoring with the modern electric sewing machine and permanent disability of the appellant does not hamper his work. ( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the amount spent on treatment is concerned we have gone through the record and we find that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and does not call for interference. So far as loss of work is concerned, considering the long hospitalisation and confinement to bed of the appellant, we are of the view that appellant must have remained confined to bed for 6 months. Thus, we enhance the amount on this count from Rs. 9,000 to rs. 18,000. Under the head of permanent disablement the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 30,000. The appellant has suffered 60 per cent permanent disablement. While it is true that modern machines have reduced the function of lower limb but still we feel that a sum of Rs. 30,000 awarded by Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate specially when there is also shortening of leg by 2 cm. Learned counsel for appellant has brought to our notice the decision of this court in Pyarsingh v. Kamlabai, 2004 acj 902 (MP), wherein, in a case of shortening of leg by 2 cm, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was awarded. In that case, however, there was fracture in both legs resulting in shortening by 2 cm. Learned counsel for appellant has brought to our notice the decision of this court in Pyarsingh v. Kamlabai, 2004 acj 902 (MP), wherein, in a case of shortening of leg by 2 cm, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was awarded. In that case, however, there was fracture in both legs resulting in shortening by 2 cm. In the present case, there being fracture in one leg, we are of the view that compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 in place of Rs. 30,000 would be just and adequate. Claims Tribunal has awarded rs. 11,000 towards pain and suffering, we feel that the amount is on the lower side, a sum of Rs. 20,000 is therefore awarded towards pain and suffering. Nothing has been awarded for special diet, conveyance and for attendant, we award consolidated amount of Rs. 20,000 towards special diet, conveyance and attendant. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,58,000 is awarded in place of rs. 1,50,000 awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application. ( 8 ) WITH above modifications, this appeal is disposed of with no orders as to costs. Appeal allowed. .