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 23rd August, 2006 passed by learned MACT, Dewas in claim case No. 98/05. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,15,437 with interest @ 6% per annum for the injuries sustained, arising out of the accident occurred on 2nd November, 2005. 2. Appellant had preferred a claim petition under Section of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,25,000/-. He had received injuries i.e. fracture of right leg femur bone and left leg tibia fibula bone. 3. The Tribunal has awarded the total some of Rs. 1,15,437. The certificate of permanent disablement (Ext. P-6) is available on record. The Tribunal found it, a case of permanent disability to the extent of 51% grievous injury. The Tribunal recorded finding that the case is of 41.7% permanent disablement of whole body. 4. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- in the head of permanent disablement and pain and suffering, Rs. 40,437 in medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- in other heads i.e., conveyance, special diet, transporation, however, total compensation of Rs. 1,15,437 is paid. 5. Mr. Verma, Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that Tribunal has committed error in awarding the lump sum compensation in the head of future loss of earning due to permanent disablement. It is contended by him that the injured is an agriculturist and a mild vendor, however, earning ought to have been accepted comensurate to his work while calculating future loss of earning, applying multiplier method as specified in Second Schedule of the Act. It is also contended that in other heads i.e., conveyance, special diet, attendant, loss of wages, the amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 5,000/- is inadequate which is further liable to be enhanced. 6. On the other hand Mr. RJ. Pandit, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Insurance Company has strenuously urged that looking to the statement of the Doctor, as accepted by the Tribunal, regarding whole body to the extent of 41.7% is on higher side. In any case lump sum compensation as awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 50,000/- is just and proper because the earning of the injured has not been proved by cogent evidence. In any case lump sum compensation as awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 50,000/- is just and proper because the earning of the injured has not been proved by cogent evidence. It is also contended by him that the finding as recorded with respect to grant of compensation and quantum thereof is just and proper, therefore, the enhancement may not be directed and appeal deserves dismissal. 7. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of permanent disability certificate Ext. P/16 and the statement of Dr. Balendu, the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that injured has suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 41.7% of whole body the Insurance Company has not filed any cross-objection assailing this finding. Even then in the head of future loss of earning due to said permanent disablement, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been allowed by the Tribunal. In the opinion of this Court, the basis to grant such lump sum compensation is not available on record. After going through the statement of the Doctor and the certificate of permanent disablement, whereby it is apparent that the injured has suffered injury i.e. fracture of right leg femur bone and left leg tibia fibula bone, therefore, looking to the percentage i.e. 51% as per certificate of disablement for whole body it may be to the extent of 20%. The accident had taken place on 2nd November, 2005 and the injured was the agriculturist and milk vendor on the said date as per pleading in the claim petition. No credible evidence to prove his earning is available, but in any case he is man of 35 years, must have been some earning to earn bread and butter for the family, therefore, at least Rs. 2,500 per month may safely be accepted which is nearer to minimum wages prevalent on the date of accident. However, if we accept the said wages then amount of compensation in the head of wages comes to Rs. 30,000/- and commensurate to the percentage of disablement i.e. 20%, future loss of earning comes to Rs. 6,000/- per annum. As per age, if multiplier of 16 is made applicable then future loss of earning comes to Rs. 96,000/-. If we deduct Rs. 50,000/- which is allowed by the Tribunal then enhancement of Rs. 46,000/- may be directed in the said head. 6,000/- per annum. As per age, if multiplier of 16 is made applicable then future loss of earning comes to Rs. 96,000/-. If we deduct Rs. 50,000/- which is allowed by the Tribunal then enhancement of Rs. 46,000/- may be directed in the said head. In the head of conveyance, attendant, loss of wages special diet Rs. 5,000/-as allowed by the Tribunal is inadequate and meagre. However, it may further be enhanced at least by 2,000/- in the said head, because due to injury in both the legs injured may not have performed any work for a considerable period. In other heads compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is just and proper. In view of the foregoing enhancement of Rs. 76,000/-, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal, is being directed. 8. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as allowed by the Tribunal is enhanced to the sum of Rs. 76,000/- in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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.