Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a claimants appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against award dated 21-12-2000 passed in claim case no. 26/1999 passed by III Additional Member, m. A. C. T. , Jaora (M. P.) awarding a sum of rs. 35,500 to the claimant. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case as alleged are that on the date of incident i. e. on 21 -9-1997 at 4. 30 p. m on the Mhow-Neemuch National highway near Village Jhalva vehicle bearing registration No. R. N. Q. 8283 met with an accident and the claimant Ramdayal son of raghunathji Patidar aged 20years resident of village Jhalva, Tehsil Jaora, who was travelling with other passengers received injuries due to the collision with another bus. The right hand of the claimant was broken and other passengers also received injuries. The matter was reported at the police station Kalukheda, tehsil Jaora, District Ratlam and the diver of the truck bearing registration No. R. N. Q. 8283 was arrested by the police and offence was registered at No. 62/97 for offence under sections 279, 337, 338 of the I. P. C. The injured were sentto their medical examination and after completion of the Investigation the driver of said truck was duly charged. The appellant filed claim No. 26/99 stating that he was a sales agent and earn Rs. 3,000 per month and due to the accident he had also received injuries on the left leg on the buttock and on the right hand on the shoulder, beside his private parts of body were also severally damaged and that he had become incapable of walking freely and could not carry on his work due to the injury on right hand; he was also disabled and unable to carry on his daily routine duties and stating that the amount expended on his treatment and for pain and suffering he claimed a total sum of rs. 5,04,000. ( 3. ) THE driver and the owner of the bus remained ex parte whereas respondent insurance Company disputed the claim by stating that the claimant had not received the injuries as alleged and since the owner and driver of the other bus bearing No. M. P. 13k 1786 were not made a party, the claim suffers from non-joinder of parties. ) THE driver and the owner of the bus remained ex parte whereas respondent insurance Company disputed the claim by stating that the claimant had not received the injuries as alleged and since the owner and driver of the other bus bearing No. M. P. 13k 1786 were not made a party, the claim suffers from non-joinder of parties. Moreover, taking usual the ground that the driver of the alleged bus did not posses a valid and legal driving licence at the time of the accident and so there was violation of condition of policy, beside composite negligence of both the drivers claimed that the Insurance Company was not liable. ( 4. ) THE Tribunal considering the evidence, however, found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck bearing No. R. N. Q. 8283 since he had tried to overtake another vehicle without giving any indication and had lost his balance and therefore, the accident had occurred, the tribunal held that the Insurance Company was also liable since it was the insurer of the said vehicle and there was no violation of the condition of the policy as alleged. ( 5. ) ON considering the evidence the tribunal, however, awarded a sum of rs. 35,500 as indicated above and being aggrieved the claimant filed the present appeal for enhancement of the sum thus awarded. And since the short controversy in the appeal pertains only to the enhancement of the compensation awarded, there is no reason to go into details regarding the responsibility of how injuries had occurred or who was liable to pay compensation since there is an absence of any challenge to these findings by the respondents and they have not filed any cross-appeal or cross-objection and these findings have become final. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the M. L. C. Ex. A/23, the claimant Munishwar received an injury on the right hand shoulder region, the second injury on the left buttock and an injury in the abdominal region. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to the M. L. C. Ex. A/23, the claimant Munishwar received an injury on the right hand shoulder region, the second injury on the left buttock and an injury in the abdominal region. On being admitted to the civil hospital at Jaora they found that there was a fracture on the left leg, the right shoulder and the public bone which was confirmed by the X-ray available on the record, thereafter for proper treatment he was shifted to the charitable hospital at Ujjain where after treatment he was discharged on 24-9-1997 and was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500 as expenses. Rs. 1,000 for special diet and for pain and suffering was awarded Rs. 2,000 for the transport expenses he was awarded Rs. 1,000 thus, sum of rs. 5,500 was granted under the head of medical expenses. Due to the fracture received to Munishwar on his hand as well as buttock he experienced difficulty in standing and sitting down. Dr. S. K. Varun (P. W. 9) has stated that the right clavicle bone of Munishwar being affected, so also left ischeal bone and the ramous pubic bone being fractured and internal injury received in abdomine was certified to have permanent disability of 20 percent due to the mobility being affected and he was not capable of complete rotation in movement, all these injuries were properly supported by the various documents amounting to No. 138 in number. The Tribunal, however, found thatthe total disability amounted only to 8% permanent disability since Dr. Varun (P. W. 9) in his cross-examination admitted that most of the injuries had united and recovered except for the soft right clavicle fracture and hence, for the permanent disability of Rs. 30,000 was awarded and thus the Tribunal assessed a total sum rs. 35,5000 as compensation. It is this determination which is challenged by the claimant as being on the lower side stating that the medical expenses had not been properly considered by the Tribunal; Counsel stated that only Rs. 1,500 were allotted under the head of treatment and only Rs. 2,000 was awarded for the pain and suffering whereas the claimant was unable to move freely due to the injuries sustained in his whole body and suffering pain in the abdominal area/region. ( 7. 1,500 were allotted under the head of treatment and only Rs. 2,000 was awarded for the pain and suffering whereas the claimant was unable to move freely due to the injuries sustained in his whole body and suffering pain in the abdominal area/region. ( 7. ) I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant and taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and the extent of damage caused to the body and the disability occurred he is now not in a position as he was prior to the accident and his capacity to work having been reduced the expenditure as alleged have not been properly assessed, moreover, thefuture loss for mental pain and suffering has also not been calculated, i also find that forthe loss of income during his hospitalization also no amount has been paid. ( 8. ) IN view of the above, a lump sum enhancement of Rs. 64,500 would be fit under the circumstances, the compensation awarded to the claimant must be just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of each case, although no fixed criteria for assessment can be laid down, it is duty of the court to award reasonable compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered. Thus, the total amount of compensation shall be rs. 35,500 + Rs. 64,500 comes to Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. one lac only ). ( 9. ) THUS, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent only) from the date of this application till realization. All otherfindings are upheld not being under challenge. Counsel fees Rs. 1,500 if certified.