JUDGMENT : H.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 20th July, 2016, passed by learned 9th Addl. MACT, Jabalpur, in MVC No. 225 of 2015, whereby, by the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.66,400/- with interest @ 8% per annum to the appellant by way of compensation on account of the amputation of index finger of left hand of the appellant in the accident occurred on 3rd September, 2014. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the date of incident, i.e. 3rd September, 2014, when the appellant was going with his Thela near Chirayu Hospital, Jabalpur, after selling fruits, the respondent No. 1, driver of offending vehicle (Ambulance) bearing registration No. MP-20-DA/ 1225, by driving it rashly and negligently at a very high speed dashed the appellant from back side and caused injuries to him left claw and various parts of the body. Thereafter, appellant was treated at Govt. Medical Hospital, where after X-ray was taken, it was found that two fingers of his left hand were fractured and damaged. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur, thereupon Cr. Case No. 321/2014 for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and Challan has been produced. After X-ray, fracture of 4th and 5th metacarpals of left head was found and then case under Section 338 of IPC was added. 3. Appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation. According to the appellant compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager and deserves enhancement; however, by filing the appeal inadequacy of the compensation has been assailed. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issued and on the basis of documents available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred near and within he jurisdiction of Police Station Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur, Learned Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and awarded compensation of Rs.66,400/- to the appellant. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issued and on the basis of documents available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred near and within he jurisdiction of Police Station Madan Mahal, District Jabalpur, Learned Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and awarded compensation of Rs.66,400/- to the appellant. 5. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the alleged accident the appellant received various injuries on his body and his index finger of left hand became inactive and left ring finger was amputated by half, causing permanent disablement to him and due to the aforesaid injuries he could not perform his business of selling fruits properly, after the incident. Initially, the appellant was treated at Subh Hospital Jabalpur and thereafter at Medical College Jabalpur. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, without looking to the injuries sustained by him and has been awarded the same on lower side, which is liable to be enhanced. He further submits that the learned Tribunal assessed the loss of income of the appellant only for a period of one month, whereas, the applicant was treated in the hospital for three months and, therefore, has awarded the compensation on lower side. 6. The non-applicants have submitted their written statement and, has vehemently, opposed the claim made by the applicant before the Claims Tribunal, alleged that the applicant is a permanent resident of Jabalpur district and is doing the fruits selling work at his own Thela. The non-applicant No. 2 has submitted that the offending vehicle was not covered with valid driving license, permit and fitness. 7. On the other hand, Shri Rustam Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has relied upon the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal and further argued that the compensation awarded is just, proper and reasonable and not liable to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 8. Dr. Sharad Dwivedi (PW/2), has stated that he has treated the appellant at Shubh Hospital, Jabalpur and has given certificate Ex.P/11 with regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant as also his permanent disablement to the extent of 15% has been proved. Dr. 8. Dr. Sharad Dwivedi (PW/2), has stated that he has treated the appellant at Shubh Hospital, Jabalpur and has given certificate Ex.P/11 with regard to the injuries sustained by the appellant as also his permanent disablement to the extent of 15% has been proved. Dr. Dwivedi has further stated that according to circular issued by the Ministry of Labour, 15% disablement of a person falls within the scope of mild nature. He does not know from which hospital the X-ray report was obtained. He also stated that it cannot be said that fracture of every rib, results in permanent disablement. Dr. Shrivastava has stated that no application was submitted before him for obtaining certificate and no application was submitted before District Medical Board for obtaining a certificate to get him medically examined. 9. As per paras 20 to 28 of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.26,400/- towards loss of earning and looking to age of the appellant applied multiplier of 11, Rs.23,000/- towards treatment; and Rs.4,000/- towards loss for the period the applicant could not perform his business of selling fruits, in total amounting to Rs.66,400/-, which would be payable by non-applicants jointly and severally, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant. In fact, the applicant has not produced any document to show that he was unable to perform his work for four months. 10. The Apex Court in the case of R.D. Uattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Put. Ltd. and Others, A.I.R. 1995 S.C 755 : 1995 (1) T.A.C. 557, has held in para 10 as follows : 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. In view of the aforesaid legal aspects, taking into consideration the documentary evidence available on record, it appears that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and deserves enhancement. Thus, during the course of hearing, on taking note of the aforesaid considerations, nature of injuries and fracture in my opinion the award passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced by Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand). 12. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is held entitled to receive total sum of Rs.91,400/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand and four hundred), without affecting the direction of the Tribunal regarding depositing the amount of compensation and liability. The enhanced amount shall carry interest Rs.8% per annum from the date of application till its realization. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.