JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 30.7.2010 passed by Second M.A.C.T., Jaora, District Ratlam in Claim Case No. 24 of 2010 whereby learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,47,246 with interest to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which he sustained in an accident. According to claimant, i.e., appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, needs to be enhanced. It is for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal that the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and, if so, to what extent? It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimant's favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in a motor accident which took place on 9.5.2009 appellant sustained injuries. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,47,246, break-up of which is as under : Permanent disability Rs. 1,72,800 Loss of income Rs. 9,000 Expenses incurred on attendant Rs. 9,000 Special diet Rs. 9,000 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000 Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000 Transport expenses Rs. 5,000 Medical expenses Rs. 3,17,446 Total Rs. 5,47,246 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant sustained fracture of scapula bone and also crush injuries in right foot. It is submitted that right leg of the appellant was amputated from below knee. It is submitted that as per Medical Board permanent disability was of 90 per cent which has wrongly been assessed by the learned Tribunal as 28 per cent of the whole body. It is submitted that on all the heads amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that right leg of the appellant was amputated from below knee. It is submitted that as per Medical Board permanent disability was of 90 per cent which has wrongly been assessed by the learned Tribunal as 28 per cent of the whole body. It is submitted that on all the heads amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that income of the appellant was assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month while no income from agricultural land has been taken into consideration. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sri Kumaresh Vs. The Divl. Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2011) 12 SCC 488 , wherein injured was aged 20 years and was working as building centering worker drawing Rs. 6,000 per month whose leg was amputated below knee. The Tribunal assessed permanent physical disability as 70 per cent of right leg which is about 35 per cent to the whole body and as per Schedule I to the Workmen's Compensation Act loss of earning capacity due to amputation below knee is at 50 per cent. Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,81,200 and appellate court assessed income at Rs. 3,500 per month and loss of earning capacity at 50 per cent and awarded Rs. 3,78,000 for loss of earning capacity. The Apex Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,00,000. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side which deserves to be enhanced by allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, insurance company, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed. 5. Appellant is present in court and it appears that appellant has lost his right leg. Appellant has come in court with artificial limb and also with the support of crutches. On left leg also there is scar of injuries which shows that left leg of the appellant was also grievously injured. Since the accident is of the year 2009 and the appellant was a labourer, therefore, income assessed at Rs. Appellant has come in court with artificial limb and also with the support of crutches. On left leg also there is scar of injuries which shows that left leg of the appellant was also grievously injured. Since the accident is of the year 2009 and the appellant was a labourer, therefore, income assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month is just and proper and keeping in view the age of the appellant application of multiplier of 16 is also just and proper. It is true that in the matter of Sri Kumaresh Vs. The Divl. Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2011) 12 SCC 488 , the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 out of which Rs. 3,00,000 is towards loss of marital prospects. Since in the present case appellant is married, therefore, on that head no amount can be awarded. However, a case of enhancement is made out. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and appellant is entitled for the following amount : Permanent disability Rs. 4,00,000 Loss of income during treatment Rs. 15,000 Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000 Medical expenses which include future medical expenses Rs. 3,52,246 Transport expenses Rs. 10,000 Expenses incurred on attendant Rs. 10,000 Special diet Rs. 10,000 Total Rs. 8,47,246 6. In other words, appellant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 8,47,246 instead of Rs. 5,47,246 by way of compensation. The enhanced amount of Rs. 3,00,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the respondent No. 3 insurance company with the learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal is directed to invest 80 per cent of the said amount on long-term fixed deposit in the name of appellant in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant is residing with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. account of appellant, which shall be opened by the appellant from where appellant can withdraw the amount as per his needs. However, on an application by the appellant, this condition could be modified by the learned Tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.