JUDGMENT Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 1st September, 2004 passed by, Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District-Dhar (M. P.) in Claim Case No. 123/04. 2. The appellant had suffered injury in the road motor accident which had taken place on 15th September, 2003 accordingly he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that in the accident the appellant had suffered permanent disability therefore, the Tribunal awarded following amount under the different heads : (1) Actual medical expenses. Rs. 37,800/- (2) Special diet and Attendant charges. Rs. 4,600/- (3) Loss of income during the treatment period Rs. 3,000/- (4) Transportation, charges Rs. 6,900/- (5) Lump sum compensation for the permanent disability and physical and mental pain and suffering Rs. 35,000/- Total Rs. 87,300/- The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 8% from the date of application till realization on the aforesaid amount. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such is how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant and none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the respondents i.e. owner/driver/Insurance Company-by filing cross-appeal or cross-objection. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues. 4. Mr. Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. It is also submitted that on account of grievous injuries the appellant sustained permanent disablement. He could not perform any work during the treatment period and suffered loss of income. Learned Counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and award has been passed without properly appreciating the injuries sustained, the permanent disablement, hospitalization, medical bills and the loss of earning. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed. 5. On the other hand Mr. Learned Counsel further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and award has been passed without properly appreciating the injuries sustained, the permanent disablement, hospitalization, medical bills and the loss of earning. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed. 5. On the other hand Mr. C.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company has supported the findings of the Claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The A.W.2 Dr. B. L. Khangar has stated that in the accident the appellant had suffered fracture in the light leg. The fracture was not properly united and there was limping in the right leg. Doctor has also stated that the appellant requires support while walking and according to the doctor the appellant had suffered 39.4% permanent disability in the right leg. The appellant A.W. 1 Omprakash has stated that he needs support for walking and he had come to the Court to give the statement using the support. The A.W. 3 Saeed Khan has also stated that the appellant was running the betel (Paan) shop but on account of the permanent disability suffered by him, he is not in a position to sit on the shop. 8. The Tribunal has not disbelieved the extent of the permanent disability which is disclosed by the doctor. Thus, it is found that the appellant had suffered 39.4% permanent disability in a particular limb of the body, which comes to 20% in reference of the whole body. The evidence on record indicates that at the time of accident the appellant was aged about 45 years. The Tribunal has found the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000 which comes to the annual income of Rs. 36,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the appellant, the applicable multiplier in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 A.C.J. 1298 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677, comes to 14. 3,000 which comes to the annual income of Rs. 36,000/-. Keeping in view the age of the appellant, the applicable multiplier in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in 2009 A.C.J. 1298 : 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677, comes to 14. Thus the loss of income comes to 36,000 x 20% x 14 = 1,00,800 which the appellant is entitled to receive on account of injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- under this head, therefor, the appellant is entitled to further sum of Rs. 65,800 under this head. The appellant will also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 7,500 under the head of physical and mental pain and suffering. 9. In addition to this the appellant has also filed before this Court the medical bills of the expenses which were incurred by him in addition to the one which was proved before the Tribunal. These bills have been filed along the application under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC and genuineness of these bills are not in dispute. These bills are of Rs. 42,578, therefore, the appellant will be entitled to receive a further sum of Rs. 42,578 in addition to the amount which has already been awarded by the Tribunal under the head of actual medical expenses. 10. The amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is just and proper. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 65,800 + 7,500 + 42,578 = Rs. 1,15,878 (round figure Rs. 1,15,900). 11. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced to the sum of Rs. 1,15,900 which is payable to the appellant in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as directed by the Tribunal and will be payable from the same date as contained in the award of the Tribunal. No costs.