JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 24.12.2011 passed by the M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case No. 111 of 2010 whereby claim petition, filed by the appellant for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident occurred on 15.5.2009, was allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,53,000 was awarded and respondent No. 3 was not exonerated, present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000, the breakup of which is as under : Medical expenses Rs. 55,000 Special diet Rs. 12,000 Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000 Attendant expenses Rs. 5,000 Permanent disability Rs. 60,000 Loss of income Rs. 9,000 Future medical expenses Rs. 7,000 Total Rs. 1,53,000 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained fracture of fibula and tibia bone and patella bone. Appellant was hospitalised initially for 22 days at District Hospital, Dhar and thereafter Suyog Hospital, Dhulia for a period of more than one month where he was operated; rod was inserted, permanent disability was to the extent of 50 per cent. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of the injured at Rs. 3,000 per month and after assessing the permanent disability at 12.5 per cent and after applying multiplier of 13 compensation was awarded. It is submitted that on all the heads the amount is on lower side and also learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating (sic) respondent No. 3. It is submitted that appeal be allowed, amount be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case for further enhancement can be made. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding respondent No. 3 liable for payment of compensation as the vehicle was being used in violation of terms of policy which is proved by the evidence available on record. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 3 be allowed and the findings relating to liability of respondent No. 3 be set aside. 5. It is submitted that appeal be dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 3 be allowed and the findings relating to liability of respondent No. 3 be set aside. 5. From perusal of the record it appears that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded is on lower side and, therefore, a case for enhancement is made out as from perusal of the statement of doctor, it is proved that the injuries sustained by the appellant are grievous in nature, as appellant was operated and six rods were inserted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, permanent disability assessed to the extent of 12.5 per cent is on lower side. Since the accident is of the year 2009, therefore, the income assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month is also on lower side. After assessing the income of the injured at Rs. 4,000 per month and after assessing permanent disability to the extent of 25 per cent, the appellant is entitled for the following amount : Permanent disability Rs. 1,50,000 Medical expenses Rs. 60,000 Attendant expenses Rs. 10,000 Transport expenses Rs. 10,000 Special diet Rs. 10,000 Loss of income Rs. 10,000 Total Rs. 2,50,000 6. Thus, appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 instead of Rs. 1,53,000. The enhanced amount comes to Rs. 97,000, which shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. 7. So far as liability is concerned, since the claim petition was allowed holding the respondent No. 3 liable and award was also satisfied without challenging the liability and the cross-objection has been filed at the stage when appellant filed the appeal for enhancement, therefore, this court is of the view that at this stage cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 3, so far as it relates to the amount awarded and paid, cannot be entertained. However, since the offending vehicle was goods vehicle and was being used for carrying passengers, therefore, so far as enhanced amount is concerned, it is respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who shall be liable for payment of enhanced compensation and respondent No. 3 stands exonerated to that extent. 8. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of with costs.