Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act which is arising out of award dated 7.3.2007 passed by M. A. C.T., Shajapur in Claim Case No. 114 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000 to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which appellant sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent? ( 2. ) 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 for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. ( 3. ) As observed supra, it is a injury case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who was aged 30 years on the date of accident and cleaner, sustained fracture of tibia and fibula bone of right leg. The appellant was hospitalised from 12.12.2005 to 23.1.2006. Appellant was operated twice. Medical evidence was adduced according to which there was 80 per cent permanent disability which was believed by learned Tribunal. The observation about the exact position of leg has been made by the learned Tribunal in the award. It is submitted that learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000 break-up of which is as under: ( 4. ) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant cannot walk without support of crutches. The learned counsel submits that so far as earning capacity of appellant is concerned, it is a case of 100 per cent permanent disability as there is vesting of leg. ) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant cannot walk without support of crutches. The learned counsel submits that so far as earning capacity of appellant is concerned, it is a case of 100 per cent permanent disability as there is vesting of leg. The contention of learned counsel is that looking to nature of injuries, the amount awarded is on lower side. For this contention, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Mohd. Hanif v. Ram Gopal, I (2005) ACC 633, where the permanent disability was 70 per cent of the left foot and the appellant lost his natural gait, this court enhanced the compensation from Rs.2,56,170 to Rs.4,00,000. ( 5. ) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that accident is dated 12.12.2005 while F.I.R. was lodged on 24.4.2006. Inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. itself indicates that offending vehicle has falsely been implicated, So far as injuries are concerned, learned counsel submits that amount awarded is just and proper and no further case of enhancement is made out. ( 6. ) From perusal of record, it is evident that immediately after the accident when the appellant was brought to hospital, intimation was given by the hospital authorities and also by the driver to Police Station, Sarangpur. Exh, P5 is the rojnamcha. One constable was appointed for investigation and it was found that accident occurred as tyre of the truck burst, therefore, police came to the conclusion that no offence has been committed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim petition filed by the appellant cannot be rejected on the ground that F.I. R. was lodged after inordinate delay, in fact intimation was given by the appellant by post. ( 7. ) After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that one of the leg of appellant is completely damaged and appellant cannot walk without support of crutches, it appears that amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. Since accident is of the year 2005, therefore, income of appellant may be assessed as Rs.2,500 per month and loss of earning capacity can be assessed as 50 per cent and application of multiplier of 18 would be appropriate. In the facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled for the following amount: ( 8. Since accident is of the year 2005, therefore, income of appellant may be assessed as Rs.2,500 per month and loss of earning capacity can be assessed as 50 per cent and application of multiplier of 18 would be appropriate. In the facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled for the following amount: ( 8. ) Thus, appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,70,000 instead of Rs. 2,25,000. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,45,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent from the date of application. 80 per cent of the amount shall be deposited in the nationalised bank in the name of appellant for which appellant shall be entitled for monthly interest. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. within three days. Appeal disposed of.