JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1 This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 21.2.2007 passed by learned Member M.A.C.T., Shajapur in Claim Case No.84 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,05,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the injuries sustained, arising out of the accident occurred on 11.5.2006. 2 The appellant had preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,95,000. He had received injuries on the right leg for which he was operated and other grievous injuries. 3 The Tribunal has awarded the total sum of Rs. 1,05,000. The certificate of permanent disablement (Exh. P9) is available on record. The Tribunal found it a case of permanent disability to the extent of 27.7 per cent for whole body. Under the head of permanent disablement the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000, towards future loss of earnings Rs. 5,000, in the head of medical expenses and special diet Rs.50,000. 4 It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to pay the 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. 5 Mr. Manish Jain, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as per the statement of Dr. Sonkar and the certificate of permanent disablement Exh. P9, it is apparent that the permanent disablement with respect to whole body is to the extent of 27.7 per cent but the certificate is of 59.3 per cent, and there is no reason to disbelieve such certificate. It is also contended by him that the compensation ought to have been determined after applying the multiplier method, looking to the earning and age of the injured. It is said that in other heads, i.e., special diet, conveyance and attendant no amount is allowed and in the head of loss of wages also the amount as allowed is inadequate. It is also contended by him that the compensation ought to have been determined after applying the multiplier method, looking to the earning and age of the injured. It is said that in other heads, i.e., special diet, conveyance and attendant no amount is allowed and in the head of loss of wages also the amount as allowed is inadequate. In view of the said submissions, the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed, because it is meagre and deserves enhancement. 6 On the other hand Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company has contended in support of 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. 7 After having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the statement of doctor as well as the certificate of permanent disablement Exh. P9, in the opinion of this court the permanent disablement with respect to whole body may safely be accepted to the extent of 25 per cent, if we accept the earning as accepted by the Tribunal at Rs. 5,000 per month then the earnings per annum comes to the tune of Rs. 60,000. If the future loss as commensurate to the percentage, i.e., 25 per cent is being deduced then it comes to Rs. 15,000 per annum. If multiplier, looking to the age in between 40-45, of 15 is made applicable then the amount in the said head comes to Rs. 2,25,000. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 50,000 in the said head, if we deduct the same then remaining amount comes to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000 which is liable to be enhanced in the head of permanent disablement. In the head of medical expenses the amount has rightly been allowed by the Claims Tribunal. In other heads, i.e., for conveyance, special diet, attendant charges and loss of wages Rs. 15,000 further deserves to be granted. 8 Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,90,000 in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. 8 Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 1,90,000 in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.