JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 4-12-2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 105/ 2006. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 65,000/- with interest to the claimant for the injuries which appellant sustained in the accident. According to claimant/appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, 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. 2. 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 all these findings are recorded in favour of 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 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. 3. As observed supra, it is a injury case. Break-up of the amount awarded is as under : Towards medical expenses and special diet Rs. 10,000/- Towards pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 50,000/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is a lady aged 30 years and sustained injury in her right eye in a motor accident which took place on 6-5-2005. Appellant was hospitalized at Jhabua and thereafter at Baroda. Appellant was operated twice but could not save her eye, with a result artificial eye was inserted, she has lost her vision of one eye. It is submitted that permanent disability 40% was caused to the appellant. It is submitted that in all the heads the amount awarded is on lower side. Appellant was operated twice but could not save her eye, with a result artificial eye was inserted, she has lost her vision of one eye. It is submitted that permanent disability 40% was caused to the appellant. It is submitted that in all the heads the amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that appellant has spend 50,000/- enhanced amount in the treatment, the amount awarded is grossly inadequate and hence prayed that appeal be allowed and amount be enhanced. 5. Shri Arun Gupta, Advocate appointed for amicus curiae, submits that amount awarded is just and proper and no case of further enhancement is made out and prayed that appeal be dismissed. 6. Keeping in view the fact that accident took place in the year 2005, income ought to have been assessed @ 2,500/- per month, for the purpose of assessing compensation for permanent disability. Since appellant is in the age group of 30 years, therefore, multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. Towards medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- Special diet Rs. 5,000/- Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 5,000/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 2,00,000/- Towards transport expenses Rs. 5,000/- Towards attender Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 2,30,000/- 7. Thus, appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- instead of Rs. 65,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of.