JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of the amount awarded vide award dated 28.4.2009 passed by Second M.A.C.T., Dewas in Claim Case No. 134 of 2008 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation was assessed at Rs. 1,05,503 out of which after deducting 30 per cent amount on account of contributory negligence, a sum of Rs. 73,900 has been awarded, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 22.10.2007 at about 5 p.m. when the appellant was going on a motorbike with pillion rider Tejpalsingh, at that time a jeep bearing registration No. MP 13-C 3811, which was owned and driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, hit the motorbike of the appellant, with the result appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Appellant was hospitalised where it was found that appellant had sustained fracture of tibia and fibula. Appellant was operated upon and rod was inserted. There was shortening of leg by 1". Learned Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,05,503 break-up of which is as under : Towards pain and suffering Rs. 10,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 31,503 Towards special diet Rs. 2,000 Towards expenses incurred on attendants Rs. 3,000 Towards loss of wages Rs. 9,000 Towards permanent Disability Rs. 40,000 Towards loss of property Rs. 10,000 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that on account of permanent disability the amount awarded is Rs. 40,000 which is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that the appellant was in auto deal business and the income of the appellant was Rs. 10,000 p.m. The learned counsel submits that the permanent disability was 38 per cent. It is submitted that on a number of heads no amount has been awarded and in other heads the amount is on lower side. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 61 , wherein in a case of three fractures in leg including one at tibia, the awarded amount of Rs. 72,000 was enhanced to Rs. 3,31,000. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Amjad Vs. Ram Singh Gaud and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 61 , wherein in a case of three fractures in leg including one at tibia, the awarded amount of Rs. 72,000 was enhanced to Rs. 3,31,000. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Amjad Vs. Angrej Singh and Others, (2007) ACJ 149, wherein permanent disability was to the tune of 36 per cent and this court had awarded compensation of Rs. 3,50,000. 3. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount be enhanced adequately. So far as deduction on account of contributory negligence to the extent of 30 per cent is concerned, learned counsel submits that learned Tribunal has held that appellant himself has admitted that appellant was negligent for the accident but there is no admission to that effect. Learned counsel submits that criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 but no effort was made by respondent No. 1 to demonstrate that in what circumstances the accident occurred. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings relating to contributory negligence be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal has found that accident occurred because of contributory negligence on the part of appellant. It is submitted that amount awarded is just and proper as there is no proof of income of appellant. It is also submitted that permanent disability was of the leg and not of the whole body. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 5. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that since respondent No. 1 did not appear and respondent No. 1 confessed the guilt in criminal case, there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal to hold that appellant was also negligent. From perusal of the statement it appears that the appellant has nowhere admitted that accident occurred because of negligence on his part. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by learned Tribunal that appellant was also liable for the accident to the extent of 30 per cent cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is set aside. So far as income of appellant is concerned, learned Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by learned Tribunal that appellant was also liable for the accident to the extent of 30 per cent cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is set aside. So far as income of appellant is concerned, learned Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 3,000 p.m. while appellant was in business of auto deal, however there is no proof of income on record. Since the accident occurred in the year 2007, therefore, income of the appellant ought to have been assessed at Rs. 4,000 per month as appellant was in business. So far as permanent disability is concerned, even if it is assumed that it was 38 per cent then too it was of the leg and not of the whole body, therefore at the most permanent disability can be assessed as 10 per cent. Keeping in view the age of appellant and looking to the injuries sustained by him, this court is of the view that appellant is entitled for the following amounts : Towards pain and suffering Rs. 10,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 35,000 Towards special diet Rs. 5,000 Towards expenses incurred on attendants Rs. 5,000 Towards loss of income Rs. 15,000 Towards permanent Disability Rs. 85,000 Towards damage to the Motorbike Rs. 10,000 Towards transport Expenses Rs. 5,000 Total Rs. 1,70,000 6. In view of this, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 instead of Rs. 73,900. The enhanced amount of Rs. 96,100 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. It is made clear that out of enhanced amount 80 per cent shall be deposited in the name of appellant in a nationalised bank near to the residence of appellant for a long-term fixed deposit so that it should earn highest rate of interest which shall be payable on monthly basis. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.