JUDGMENT Mr. Avneesh Jhingan J. (Oral).:- The present appeal arises from the award dated 31.07.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. On 29.03.2000, a motor vehicular accident took place, Devi Lal, aged 30 years, along with Suresh Kumar was going from Hisar to Mandi Adampur on scooter bearing registration No.HR-20-C-7533. At about 7.00 P. M., near village Landhri Pabra, the scooter was struck by a rashly and negligently driven jeep bearing registration No. RJ-10-C-1287 (herein referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). As a result of the impact, both the scooter riders fell down and suffered injuries. FIR No.42 dated 29.03.2000, was registered at Police Station, Agroha. 3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘Act’) was filed by Devi Lal. 4. It was held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 80 % qua right upper limb. Disability certificate was exhibited as P45. PW7 Dr. Joginder Kapoor proved the disability of 80% of post traumatic deformity right upper limb with restricted movements of right upper limb with traumatic deformity of right foot and right ankle. The disability was reassessed vide Ex.R1 by which it was found that there is only 51% temporary disability. The reassessment was done by PGIMS, Rohtak. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,55,885/-to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was 30 years of age and was a bank employee and only Rs.45000/- have been awarded by the Tribunal towards the disability suffered. He further argued that amounts awarded towards pain and suffering, special diet and transportation etc. are on the lower side. 7. The injuries suffered by the appellant were temporary in nature but from the reassessment report as Ex. R1 it was also evident that even after two years of accident the temporary injuries were there. He remained hospitalized and was under treatment. are on the lower side. 7. The injuries suffered by the appellant were temporary in nature but from the reassessment report as Ex. R1 it was also evident that even after two years of accident the temporary injuries were there. He remained hospitalized and was under treatment. Though initially there was a disability certificate showing permanent disability to the extent of 80% but ultimately the said certificate was superseded by the certificate of PGIMS, Rohtak that there is 51 % temporary disability due to restricted movement of right shoulder and minimal loss of extension of right elbow. He was bank employee and it has also not come on record that the functional ability of the appellant has suffered due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.40,000/-. It is clarified that while awarding lump sum enhanced amount, interest to be awarded under Section 171 of the Act has been taken into consideration. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed to the above extent.