RAFIQ, J.—Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant sustained the fracture of temporal bone, tibia bone and febula bone because the tempo that was insured with the respondent insurance company crushed her right leg. She was subjected to surgery. She has remained hospitalised for 18 days. The learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded a meager lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000 for all these injuries and pain and suffering, Rs.1,000 for medical expenses, Rs.10,000 for transportation expenses and nutritious diet and Rs.10,000 for future inconvenience. Thus in total Rs.71,000. 2. Learned counsel submitted that appellant is not able to sit cross legs or do squatting. The Tribunal has wrongly held that her disability was only 3%, whereas number of injuries were there. Payment of Rs.1,000 for medical expenses is not justified because the appellant was subjected to surgery inasmuch as she had to remain hospitalised for 18 days i.e. from 6.9.1995 to 24.9.1995. Her surgery took place on 15.9.1995 and she was hospitalised for six months thereafter till she recovered. She had spent more than Rs.15,000 on account of medical expenses although she could not produce the bills. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of the Court towards issue no.3 to argue that it was 3% disability, owing to which the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.71,000. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that the fact about surgery and hospitalisation of petitioner for 15 days was categorically pleaded by the appellant in para 5 of the claim petition. It was proved in the statement of appellant that there was fracture of temporal bone, tibia bone and febia bone of right leg and also there was dislocation of finger of the right hand. Apart from this, two more injuries, thus in total six injuries were sustained by the appellant. The appellant would not be able to sit cross legs or squatting, nor would she be able to wash the clothes or work in kitchen while sitting on the ground. It is difficult to apprehend that only 3% disability would be suffered for fracture of three major bones and one leg. The appellant would not be able to sit cross legs or squatting, nor would she be able to wash the clothes or work in kitchen while sitting on the ground. It is difficult to apprehend that only 3% disability would be suffered for fracture of three major bones and one leg. The award of Rs.1,000 only for medical expenses, because of appellant failed to prove the medical bills, would not be appreciated, more particularly when the appellant had undergone surgery and after that remained hospitalised for six months. 5. In totality of circumstances, I deem it appropriate to enhance the award from Rs.71,000 to Rs.1,00,000. The appellant would be entitled to interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.