JUDGMENT
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. The appellant/claimant/injured has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of the compensation awarded on 22.3.1990, in Claim Case No. 274 of 1981, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, (for short, the ‘Tribunal’).
2. The facts. On 21.11.1981 at about 7 p.m. the appellant/appellant for claimant Pedestrian was going through the land near Das Medical, Indore, where tempo (No. MPN 8045), driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 .and insured with respondent No. 3/The National Insurance Company, was going towards Rajbada; the tempo knocked down the appellant, as a result of which the claimant received a fracture of tibia and fibula in the right leg. He was medically examined by Dr. Pradip Bhargava, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Lecturer in Orthopaedics, M.O.M. Medical College and M. Y. Hospital, Indore. Thereafter the claimant presented an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and claimed compensation of Rs. 28,200/. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver/respondent No. 2, and held the driver, the owner and the insurer, as jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. On quantum, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 500/- towards the expenses incurred by the claimant for getting himself medically treated and for special diet; Rs. 1900/- for loss of earnings for about 18 weeks, i.e. to 12 weeks during which the claimant remained under plaster, and 6 to 8 weeks as the time taken for rehabilitation, and Rs. 15,000/- in the head of general damages (Rs. 5,000/-forphysical pain and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for permanent disability incurred by the claimant because of shortening of the right leg by 1/2″ and wastage of muscles). Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 17,400/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till payment.
3. Before this Court, Shri Rajpal, counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sureshsingh and Ors. v. Kamlesk 1987 ACJ 429, contended that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under the head of general damages, is low, as in the present case, the disability of the right leg, assessed and proved by medical report (Ext. P/5) of Dr. Pradip Bhargava (AW. 4), is 22%, as compared to the left leg; shortening of the right leg is by 1/2″; dorsiflexion and planter flexion of right ankle restricted by 10o (as compared to left ankle). In the opinion of the Doctor, there was 22% permanent physical disability of the right leg. The claimant being in his thirties, has suffered wastage of muscles of the right leg besides shortening of the leg by 1/2″; therefore, he was entitled to compensation as awarded in Sureshsingh’s case (supra). The counsel also prayed for enhancement of interest to 18% per annum, considering the devaluation of rupee. For this, counsel placed reliance on a Short-noted decision of this Court in case of M.P.S.T.C. v. Smt. Anjani Chaturvedi 1992(1) MPWN 19(DB).
4. Shri A.H. Khan, counsel for respondent No. 3, relying on Sureshsingh’s case (supra) contended that in that case the shortening of leg was by one inch and the disability assessed was 20%. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fixed the compensation at Rs. 17,400/ considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation so awarded is not inadequately low; therefore, interference in appeal is not warranted.
5. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that this is a case where the compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced. Admittedly, as proved by the medical evidence, the permanent disability is 22%; besides shortening of the right leg by 1/2″, there was wastage of muscles. The claimant/appellant is a tailor, for doing the job of tailoring, both legs are used on the sewing machine. The claimant being only 30 years of age has to suffer the disability throughout his life. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant is a skilled artisan, in my opinion the general damages could not have been less than Rs. 20,000/- as awarded towards general damages by a Division Bench of this Court in Madhiya v. Rameshchandra 1987 (1) MPWN 223. Thus, considering the comparable cases and Sureshsingh’s case (supra), wherein the disability was on the lower side, it would be just and proper to enhance the compensation under the head of general damages from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, it is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-.
6. Now, coming to interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till payment The amount of compensation so awarded having been deposited by respondent No. 3 and withdrawn by the claimant/ Appellant, I am not inclined to enhance the rate of interest either on the amount awarded by the Tribunal or on the amount enhanced by this Court, as recently a Full Bench of this Court in case of Prakramchand v. Chuttan alias Alim and Ors. , after considering various decision of the apex Court as well as Division Bench decisions of this Court, has taken the view that interest at the rate of 12% per annum is proper.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award is modified from Rs. 17,400/ to Rs. 22,400/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be deposited by the respondent No. 3/National Insurance Company with accrued interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the application till payment within six weeks from today failing which the Insurance Company shall pay interest on the amount so enhanced at the rate of 18% per annum. The respondent No. 3 will bear the costs of this appeal. Counsel’s fee Rs. 400/- if pre-certified.