JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This is an appeal filed by the claimant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 30.10.2007 passed by Thirteenth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 38 of 2006. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 72,681 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 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? 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 the 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 appellant was aged 28 years at the time of accident, which took place on 8.6.2005. It is submitted that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in both the legs. It is submitted that the appellant was hospitalised at Indore w.e.f. 10.6.2005 to 13.6.2005 and thereafter at Ahmedabad w.e.f. 14.6.2005 to 27.6.2005. It is submitted that the thumb of the right leg and ankle of the left leg were amputated. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 72,681, break-up of which is as under: 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was professional driver and the licence is Annexure P97. It is submitted that permanent disability was assessed as 26 per cent in one leg and 21 per cent in another leg, for which certificate is Annexure P102. 72,681, break-up of which is as under: 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was professional driver and the licence is Annexure P97. It is submitted that permanent disability was assessed as 26 per cent in one leg and 21 per cent in another leg, for which certificate is Annexure P102. It is submitted that thereafter appellant was again examined, wherein permanent disability was assessed as 27 per cent and 20 per cent in both the legs, of which certificate is Annexure P105. It is submitted that there were 250-300 stitches in his leg. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under all the heads is on lower side which deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the amount be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the permanent disability as assessed, is of the leg and not of the whole body. It is submitted that the licence had expired before the accident, which shows that appellant was not professional driver. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant on the issue of injuries sustained by appellant. Appellant is present in court. He sustained crush injuries in both the legs. Since the accident is of the year 2005, therefore, this court is of the view that the learned Tribunal committed error in assessing the income at Rs. 1,800 per month, which ought to have been Rs. 3,000 per month. So far as permanent disability is concerned, the same is assessed as 20 per cent of the whole body. Appellant was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, therefore, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied for computing the permanent disability. Under other heads also amount awarded appears to be on the lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the amount of compensation. The appellant is entitled for the following amount: 6. In other words, in view of this, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,08,181 instead of Rs. Under other heads also amount awarded appears to be on the lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the amount of compensation. The appellant is entitled for the following amount: 6. In other words, in view of this, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,08,181 instead of Rs. 72,681 by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 1,35,500 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the insurance company with the learned Tribunal and the 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 modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.