Judgment J.K.Maheshwari, J. ( 1. ) This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 30.6.1999 passed by learned Third Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Ratlam in Claim Case No. 28 of 1998. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 63,000 with interest to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 1.3.1997. ( 2. ) The appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,500. According to appellant, compensation awarded by Tribunal is meagre and deserves enhancement; however, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed. ( 3. ) It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable to pay the compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant, none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the respondents, i.e., owner/driver/insurance company by filing cross-objection or cross- appeal. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on all these issues. ( 4. ) Mr. Sanjay Patwa, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is a case of 12 years aged boy, who is having loss of vision and lost his right eye, which has been proved before the Tribunal, however compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meagre and inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. ( 5. ) On the other hand, Mr. H.G. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company has relied upon the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and argued that for loss of vision court may determine appropriate amount of compensation, which may be just, proper and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 6. ) After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and the findings of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the appellant has lost his right eye at the age of 12 years for which he is suffering mentally and physically and will suffer loss of confidence and discomfort in the remaining period of life. ) After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and the findings of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the appellant has lost his right eye at the age of 12 years for which he is suffering mentally and physically and will suffer loss of confidence and discomfort in the remaining period of life. At the same time marriage prospect may also be affected. Considering all these aspects and on consideration of the judgment of Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Sharma v. Roshanlal, 2007 ACJ 57 (Chhattisgarh), I am of the considered view that the amount of Rs. 50,000 is liable to be enhanced in the head of pain and suffering and mental shock due to loss of his eye and Rs. 2,00,000 is enhanced for loss of vision of eye, loss of confidence, discomfort and hardship for the remaining period of life and for affecting the marriage prospects. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000 is enhanced in addition to the amount already awarded. ( 7. ) In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in part and appellant is held entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 2,50,000 in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.