Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 5.4.2004 passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T., District Shajapur in Claim Case No. 19 of 2003 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,80,500 with interest to the appellant. According to appellant, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come up in appeal. 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 the 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 reasons that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in appellants 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 an injury case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was aged 45 years and was agriculturist at the time of accident which took place on 12.4.2001. It is submitted that appellant sustained fracture of femur bone in left leg and fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg. It is submitted that appellant was hospitalised twice where operation took place and rod was inserted, thereafter, on third time the appellant was again hospitalised and was operated as the rod was broken inside the body. It is submitted that there was a permanent disability up to the extent of 38 per cent. It is submitted that learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,500 which is on lower side, break-up of which is as under: ( 4. It is submitted that there was a permanent disability up to the extent of 38 per cent. It is submitted that learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,500 which is on lower side, break-up of which is as under: ( 4. ) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case for enhancement is made out. ( 5. ) From perusal of record, it appears that there were two fractures in left leg of the appellant for which the appellant was operated twice and thereafter rod which was inserted was broken inside the body of appellant for which again appellant was operated. Permanent disability has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as 38 percent. Even if it is assumed that it was not a case of 38 per cent permanent disability, then too, it can safely be said that it is a case of 20 per cent permanent disability of whole body. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record, this court is of the opinion that the amount awarded is on lower side. In view of this, appellant shall be entitled for the following amount: ( 6. ) Thus, appellant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,41,500 instead of Rs. 1,80,500. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The enhanced sum of Rs. 61,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. C.C. within 3 days as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.