Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is claimants appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles act seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Second Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case no. 47 of 1998. By the impugned award dated 20. 1. 2001 for the serious injuries sustained by appellant in the accident in question, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 is awarded as compensation. Appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. ( 2. ) APPELLANT claims to be a 36 years old man engaged in the vocation of sale of groundnut by moving around in the city on a cycle. According to the appellant, he used to earn about Rs. 100 per day by sale of groundnut and on 18. 2. 1998 when he was engaged in his vocation on his cycle, a truck bearing No. MP 06-E 0759 came from the opposite side, which was driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. The truck in question was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3. The truck dashed against the cycle of the appellant. Appellant fell down and wheels of the truck went over both legs of the appellant. As a result of the accident, appellant sustained serious injuries on his both legs. He was immediately admitted to Madhav Dispensary from where he was shifted to J. A. Group of hospitals. He was under treatment in J. A. Group of Hospitals for a long period of time. He was operated upon and rods were implanted in his legs but even after operation, he has not recovered completely. ( 3. ) THE claimant claimed that he has sustained permanent disability because of the accident to the tune of 60 per cent. Claim petition was filed before the court below. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence and other material that has come on record found the claimant to have sustained serious injuries in the accident, but for the same, only granted a compensation of rs. 50,000, a sum of Rs. 20,000 was awarded towards pain and suffering, rs. 25,000 was awarded for the fractures sustained and a sum of Rs. 20,000 was awarded towards loss of future earnings. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000 is awarded as compensation. ( 4. 50,000, a sum of Rs. 20,000 was awarded towards pain and suffering, rs. 25,000 was awarded for the fractures sustained and a sum of Rs. 20,000 was awarded towards loss of future earnings. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs. 1,30,000 is awarded as compensation. ( 4. ) INTER alia, contending that for loss of 60 per cent earning capacity and for permanent disablement to the extent of 60 per cent, an amount of Rs. 50,000 is very much on the lower side, this appeal has been filed for enhancement. ( 5. ) MR. Arun Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that once the learned Tribunal found that the appellant had sustained 60 per cent permanent disablement and accepted the same then the compensation should have been calculated on the basis of loss of earning capacity proportionate to the disability suffered. In assessing the compensation only by granting a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000, Mr. Sharma submitted that the court below has committed grave error. Accordingly, mr. Arun Sharma submitted that the compensation awarded is liable to be enhanced. In support of his contention, he invited my attention to the judgment recorded by the bench of this court in the case of Gabdram v. Kailash, M. A. No. 946 of 2004; decided on 24. 8. 2006 and another judgment of a division Bench of this court in the case of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hari kishan, 2005 ACJ 1368 (MP), to claim appropriate compensation. ( 6. ) MR. M. P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 3 refuting the aforesaid, submitted that the treating doctor is not examined and as permanent disability caused is not properly explained, no case for grant of compensation or enhancement is made out. Accordingly, mr. Agrawal prayed for dismissal of this appeal. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, it is clear that because of the accident, the appellant had sustained serious injuries on both of his legs, as can be seen from the statement of the appellant, AW 1, Madan mohan so also the statement of Dr. C. J. Gaikwad, AW 3. Dr. Gaikwad is an orthopaedic surgeon working in J. A. Group of hospitals and he had treated the appellant immediately after the accident. From the statement of Dr. C. J. Gaikwad, AW 3. Dr. Gaikwad is an orthopaedic surgeon working in J. A. Group of hospitals and he had treated the appellant immediately after the accident. From the statement of Dr. Gaikwad, it is clear that appellant had sustained serious fractures of both his legs because of the accident. Record indicates that appellant was admitted in the hospital for various periods. He was under treatment of Dr. Gaikwad. He was also advised to undergo operation. But after the accident, the length of his legs has shortened by 3 cm. Dr. Gaikwad has certified that the appellant claimant has sustained 60 per cent disablement. ( 8. ) IN para 7 of the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has accepted this fact and it has been held by the Tribunal that the appellant has sustained injuries and disability as stated by the doctor. However, after holding so, only a sum of Rs. 50,000 was granted towards disablement. This, in my opinion, is not correct. Once it is established that the person concerned has suffered a permanent disablement, then appropriate compensation has to be granted taking note of the nature of disability suffered by the injured person. ( 9. ) ACCORDING to the appellant, he used to sell groundnut and was earning about rs. 100 per day. From the statement of the appellant, it is seen that he used to sell groundnut and was earning around Rs. 100 to Rs. 125 per day. Even if Rs. 100 per day may be on the higher side, it can be easily construed that the appellant used to earn rs. 2,000 per month from this vocation and because of the accident as he has suffered 60 per cent disablement, he was entitled to compensation considering the quantum of disablement suffered by him. ( 10. ) ACCORDINGLY, the quantum of compensation on account of disablement has to be assessed by taking his income to be rs. 2,000 per month which would come to rs. 24,000 per year. Thus, his loss of earning capacity to the extent of 60 per cent would come to Rs. 14,400. Considering the age of the appellant to be 36 years, multiplier to be adopted would be of 16. Accordingly, compensation would come to rs. 2,30,400. To this amount, an amount of Rs. 24,000 per year. Thus, his loss of earning capacity to the extent of 60 per cent would come to Rs. 14,400. Considering the age of the appellant to be 36 years, multiplier to be adopted would be of 16. Accordingly, compensation would come to rs. 2,30,400. To this amount, an amount of Rs. 45,000 would be added towards pain and suffering and compensation for the injuries sustained taking the compensation to Rs. 2,75,400. ( 11. ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed in part. Amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from rs. 1,30,000 to Rs. 2,75,400 (rupees two lakh seventy-five thousand four hundred ). The enhanced amount shall be paid by the respondent insurance company along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till payment. ( 12. ) THE appeal succeeds in part and is disposed of as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.