JUDGMENT : Mahesh Bhagwati, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 2. Contextual facts depict that on 27th April, 1993, the appellant-claimant was traveling by bus bearing registration no. UP 14-B-3313 from Ajmer to Jaipur. No sooner did the bus reach at about 9.00 AM near Dudu on National Highway No.8, a Maruti Car was seen coming from opposite direction. The driver of the bus was driving it rashly and negligently and first rammed the Maruti car and in the process of avoiding accident, he dashed it against the tree, as a result of which the appellant-claimant, who was sitting inside the bus, sustained grievous injury on his left leg. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, which decreed an amount of Rs. 55,000/- in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 3. Being aggrieved by this paultry amount, the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of quantum of compensation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the claimant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula bone of left leg and suffered 18% permanent partial disability prominently affecting his long walk and run on uneven grounds. The learned counsel took me through the medical certificate (Ex.15) and contended that the claimant remained hospitalized thrice and thus got medical treatment for a considerable long period of 9 months. The claimant had to spend a huge amount on his treatment, but the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/- for physical pain and trauma caused due to injuries. He has also submitted that the Medical Board has also mentioned in Certificate (Ex.-15) that his left leg has been shortened by one inch owing to the accident. Hence, in view of all these circumstances, an additional compensation of 1,00,000/- rupee may be awarded. He has cited the case of Swatantra Kumar v. Qamar Ali and Others, reported in 1998 ACJ 920 in support thereof, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded an additional amount of Rs. One lakh to the claimant, who suffered 1.75 inches shortening of his leg. 6. He has cited the case of Swatantra Kumar v. Qamar Ali and Others, reported in 1998 ACJ 920 in support thereof, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded an additional amount of Rs. One lakh to the claimant, who suffered 1.75 inches shortening of his leg. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and proper and prayed that the same did not call for any intervention. 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material, it is noticed that albeit, the claimant sustained only one injury in bus accident, but that injury has been found to be grievous in nature as he sustained a fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg. Not only this, he had to undergo treatment for a considerable long time of 9 months. Intermittently, he was admitted in different hospitals viz. SMS Hospital, Jaipur, JLN Hospital, Ajmer and SDM Hospital, Jaipur for a period of 4-8 days. Evidently, he must have spent quite a good amount on his treatment as there occur so many expenses, of which no record is maintained by any injured or his attendants. 8. In the case of Swatantra Kumar (supra), the driver of the Jeep dashed against the motor cycle and the driver of the motor cycle and pillion rider both sustained grievous injuries. One injured suffered shortening of his leg by three inches and another injured Swatantra Kumar suffered shortening of his leg by 1.75 inches. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "it appears to us that he has suffered prolonged period of medical treatment and hospitalization in different hospitals and looking to the future economic loss, he would suffer because of permanent partial disability, which would affect his future photographic business, interest of justice will be served if an additional amount of one lac rupee is granted to the appellant by way of compensation, both, on the heads of pain, shock and suffering as well as for future economic loss keeping in view the decision of this Court awarding an additional amount of four lac rupees to the motor cycle driver Shashendra Lahiri." 9. In the instant case also the claimant-appellant remained admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur with effect from 27th April, 1993 to 30th April, 1993; in JLN Hospital, Ajmer with effect from 26th July, 1993 to 29th July, 1993 and in SDM Hospital, Jaipur from 30th December, 1993 to 7th January, 1994. It goes without saying that he must have spent a huge amount in going to the hospitals and coming back on transportation, getting admissions in hospitals, making payment over there, boarding, lodging and medical treatment. Undeniably and un-disputably, it seems that the fact of getting treatment in different hospitals and more over the fact of shortening of his left leg by three cm., which is more than one inch was lost sight of and that appears to be the reason that the learned Tribunal has not awarded a reasonable amount of compensation. 10. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swatantra Kumar (supra), it seems just to enhance the amount from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation for pain, shock, trauma and suffering. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on other various heads shall remain as they are. 11. For these reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of compensation for pain, shock, trauma and suffering is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain unchanged. Thus, the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to claim Rs. 1,30,000/- instead of Rs. 55,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing the claim petition till the same is actually realized. 12. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in-above. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.