RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 17.10.2011, which has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000 to the appellant. The appellant has preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant sustained two injuries; one of which was compound fracture of pelvis bone wherefor normally disability of 20% is assessed but the appellant being a illiterate person could not get himself examined by medical board and the permanent disability certificate was not produced. It was however argued that the Tribunal nevertheless was cognizant of the fact that appellant sustained compound fracture of the pelvis bone which was evident from the discussion made on issue no.4 and 5 at para 16 of the award. It is contended that the Tribunal took note of the injury report Ex.7 and x-ray report Ex.8 and observed that appellant sustained compound fracture of pelvis bone. He remained hospitalised for 10 days. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000 for hospitalisation of 10 days and Rs.3,200 for medical expenses, Rs.6,000 for all the injuries sustained, Rs.1,000 for transportation expenses, Rs.2,800 for loss of estate and Rs.2,000 for mental pain and agony. Learned counsel submitted that either the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for enabling the appellant to get himself medically examined for assessment of his permanent disability or this Court may award a reasonable amount for permanent disability that may have been sustained by the appellant. It is further submitted that nothing has been awarded under the head pain and suffering to the appellant. 3. Shri Rizwan Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that if the claimant has remained negligent in not producing sufficient evidence and not examining himself for assessment of permanent disablement, he cannot be allowed to gain on his own lapses. Whatever evidence which has been produced to arrive at compensation of Rs.20,000, is just and reasonable. Merely because appellant sustained fracture of pelvis bone, he cannot be held to have suffered any permanent disability. The permanent disability cannot be a matter of inference, but has to be assessed by experts. The award does not merit any interference and therefore the appeal be dismissed. 4. Merely because appellant sustained fracture of pelvis bone, he cannot be held to have suffered any permanent disability. The permanent disability cannot be a matter of inference, but has to be assessed by experts. The award does not merit any interference and therefore the appeal be dismissed. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the material on record, I find that although it is true that the claimant-appellant did not produce any certificate of permanent disability, but at the same time, it is also true that the Tribunal has recorded finding that according to Ex.7, the injury report, he sustained two injuries; one of which was simple and another was grievous and according to x-ray report Ex.8. That grievous injury resulted into compound fracture of his pelvis bone. The Tribunal has also observed that appellant had remained hospitalised for ten days and for which purpose, the Tribunal has awarded the actual medical expenses. One way of dealing with the matter is to remand it to the Tribunal afresh, however, considering the totality of circumstances, for the permanent disability, the appellant is held entitled to Rs.25,000 and for pain and suffering Rs.5,000. Thus the award is enhanced from Rs.20,000 to Rs.50,000. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest @ 7.5% in the date of filing of claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.