Judgment Abhay Gohil and Rajendra Menon, JJ. ( 1. ) This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 1st July, 2000 passed by Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in claim Case No. 152/96. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant is working in Defence Laboratory and was getting salary Rs. 5,800/- per month in the year of 1995. On 27th September, 1995 at about 6.00 p.m. when she was coming back to her house from duty, outside of Roopsingh Stadium one truck No. UMO-8451, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 came from behind, did not apply any horn and dashed the appellant. As a result of this accident she received crush injuries in her right hand and in the left leg. She was taken to Police Station Paday where F.I.R. was lodged and there after she was admitted in J.A. Croup of Hospitals, Gwalior where she remained hospitalized up to 29th September, 1995. Thereafter, she remained hospitalized in Verma Nursing Home, Agra where she was treated by Dr. V.K. Singhal and Dr. R.K. Verma from 29th September, 1995 to 21st October, 1995. On 3rd October, 1995 because of gangrine her right hand was amputed above elbow. She also received fracture in leftleg and because of this fracture in the knee the left leg also became weak and she is unable to walk properly. She filed claim petition for claiming compensation. The claim was contested. The Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence of both the parties recorded a finding that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the truck dri\ er and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2.00 lacs. ( 3. ) There is no dispute about the accident as well as about the liability of the Insurance Company. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. The only question involved in this appeal is as to what would be the just and proper compensation to be awarded to the appellant for the injuries suffered in the accident. ( 4. ) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. ( 5. The only question involved in this appeal is as to what would be the just and proper compensation to be awarded to the appellant for the injuries suffered in the accident. ( 4. ) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. ( 5. ) There is no dispute that because of the accident there was amputation of the appellants right hand above the elbow. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in the head of treatment expenses towards the medical bills submitted by the appellant. Admittedly, the bills of Rs. 53,000/- were submitted before the Tribunal and including the special diet the Tribunal has awarded total amount of Rs. 75,000/- in this head. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the head of pain and suffering and Rs. 1.00 lakh for permanent disability and also for employing the service of one servant, which is just and proper, as the appellant is still in the employment and getting the same salary. Shri Sanjay Behrani, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the injuries suffered by the injured in the left leg and has also not awarded any compensation towards the conveyance charges for attending the Office in future, as because of the injury in the left leg the appellant is unable to walk properly. Though there is no evidence on record to show what is the percentage of injury in the left leg, considering this evidence that there was fracture in the left leg and as per medical certificate (Annexure P/60) that the appellants left knee joint is very stiff and flexion cannot be done and she cannot run and squat too, we further enhance the award and award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the injury suffered in the left leg. ( 6. ) So far as the claim of the appellant for awarding compensation towards the conveyance charges, the same has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal, as she is not entitled for any conveyance charges. Normally a Government servant is never paid any charges for approaching the office except the conveyance allowance. She might be receiving conveyance allowance from the office, therefore, no additional conveyance allowance would be payable to the claimant because of the aforesaid injury. Normally a Government servant is never paid any charges for approaching the office except the conveyance allowance. She might be receiving conveyance allowance from the office, therefore, no additional conveyance allowance would be payable to the claimant because of the aforesaid injury. We also hold that in some of the heads the Tribunal has already awarded excess compensation but it will not be proper for this Court to reduce the aforesaid amount without the appeal of the Insurance Company. ( 7. ) Thus, considering the submissions and the material placed on record, we further award compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and enhance the compensation from Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs. 2.50 lacs. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of appeal. Counsels fee Rs. 500/-. ( 8. ) Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.