Prakash Shrivastava, J:

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 6-11-2009 passed by IInd Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 131/2008.

2. The appellant had suffered injuries in the road motor accident, which had taken place on 10-3-2008, accordingly he had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has refused to believe the evidence of doctor regarding permanent disability but looking to nature of injuries the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under the head of physical and mental pain and suffering, Rs 84,865/- for actual medical expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for the special diet, Rs. 20,000/-for non pecuniary loss and Rs. 18,000/- for loss of income during the treatment period. Thus the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,865/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization.

3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, negligence in driving the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation etc. because the Tribunal has already recorded the findings in favour of the appellant and none of those findings have been challenged at the instance of the respondents i.e. owner/driver/Insurance Company by filing cross appeal or cross objection. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing the facts on those issues.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. It is also submitted that on account of grievous injuries the injured sustained permanent disablement. He could not have performed any work during the treatment and earn any means. Counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate without looking to the permanent disablement or the injuries sustained, hospitalization, medical bills and the loss of earning. In view of the said submissions the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been assailed, because it is meager and deserves enhancement.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company has contended in support of the findings of the claims Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the impugned award is just and proper, which do not warrant any interference by this Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Dr. N. K. Gupta (A.W.2), who has been examined in the matter, has stated that the appellant had received injuries in the pelvis and spine region. According to the doctor, the appellant had suffered 2 fractures in pelvis region. He had also suffered fracture on other parts of body. The doctor had opined that on account of the injuries received in the accident, the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 9.7%. The doctor had given the permanent disability certificate (Ex.P/53). The Tribunal has committed an error in disbelieving the extent of permanent disability, which was assessed by the doctor. The Tribunal has not given any cogent reason for disbelieving the extent of the permanent disability. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and extent of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and the age and nature of work of the appellant and his period of treatment, it is found that the amount which has been awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads is on the lower side.

8. Accor

dingly this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000/- which is payable to the appellant in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest a the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.