JUDGMENT : Prakash Shrivastava, J. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 3.12.2003 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, District Dhar (MP) in Claim Case No. 104 of 2003. 2. The appellant had suffered injury in the road accident which had taken place on 13.1.2001. Accordingly he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that in the accident the appellant had received injury on the jaw and the wiring was done, and there was reduction of chewing and biting capacity to the extent of 40 per cent. The Tribunal found that in the accident the appellant had suffered permanent disability. The Tribunal, therefore, under all the heads awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of application till realization. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving offending vehicle and liability to pay compensation, etc., because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of appellant and none of those findings has 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 the award has been passed without properly appreciating the injuries sustained, the permanent disablement, hospitalisation, medical bills and the loss of earnings. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Saxena, 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. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Saxena, 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. AW 1, Dr. Dilip Singh, has stated that the injuries, which were received by the appellant, were grievous in nature and there was fracture of canine on the right side of the upper jaw. The doctor has stated that the wiring was done to repair the fracture and according to the doctor the intra maxillary wiring had affected his chewing and biting ability by about 40 per cent. The evidence which has been adduced by the doctor has not been disbelieved by the Tribunal and relying upon the said evidence the Tribunal had found that the appellant had suffered permanent disability. The appellant had remained admitted for some time taking the treatment for the injuries received. According to the appellant, he had spent about Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 70,000 in the treatment but he has failed to place on record the documents relating to the actual medical expenses which were incurred in the treatment. 8. Keeping in view the extent of the disability suffered by the appellant and the fact that the appellant at the time of accident was only aged about 25 years and the period of his treatment, etc., it is found that the lump sum amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and is liable to be enhanced in lump sum by Rs. 40,000. 9. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 40,000 which is payable to appellant in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount will bear interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal and will be payable from the same date as directed by the Tribunal. 10. No costs.