JUDGMENT : Venkataraman, J.—This appeal has been filed by one Yakhub against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, dismissing the claim which he filed for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for injuries caused by alleged rash or negligent driving by a State Transport driver. The accident occurred at 11-45 p.m. on 4.4.1963 on Mount Road at the Wellington Bridge. It may be taken that at that spot the road goes north to south. The Appellant (P.W.I) was pushing the hand cart from behind and the hand cart was being dragged towards south by another person Esurathnam (P.W.3). The State Transport lorry came from behind, that is, from north and hit the Appellant and caused him some injuries on the face and right ear. 2. In the statement of claim the Appellant stated as follows: The State Transport water tank lorry M.S.P. 8552 driven by O. Kuppusamy Naidu, the driver, came from behind and while badly overtaking the said hand cart caused the accident and caused the Petitioner grievous injury. Then the said lorry after traversing over 200 yards stopped. Further the said lorry was plying with inefficient brakes. The driver of the said lorry was responsible for rash and negligent driving and causing grievous injury to the Petitioner 3. The Appellant claimed Rs. 10,000/-in all under two heads, (1) for suffering and disfigurement of face Rs. 8,490/- and (2) actual and probable future pecuniary loss and expenses Rs. 1,510/-. 4. The written statement alleged in paragraph 9 as follows: Regarding the particulars stated in column 23 of the claim petition it is denied that the water lorry driver badly overtook the hand cart and that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the water lorry driver. It is also denied that the driver by rash and negligent driving caused grievous injuries to the Petitioner. The Respondent as the owner of the water lorry is not therefore liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner. 5. On behalf of the claimant, the Motor Vehicles Inspector was examined as P.W.I. He tested the brakes of the lorry on 5. 4. 1963 and found that the efficiency of the foot brake was only 30% whereas the minimum efficiency required was 40% and the hand brake was absent. 6. The Appellant gave evidence as P.W.2 stating that the hand cart was going 3 ft. 4. 1963 and found that the efficiency of the foot brake was only 30% whereas the minimum efficiency required was 40% and the hand brake was absent. 6. The Appellant gave evidence as P.W.2 stating that the hand cart was going 3 ft. from the left platform of the road. He added that he was earning Rs. 5/- per day as hand cart puller. 7. Esurathnam who dragged the cart gave evidence as P.W.3. He stated that the lorry stopped 10 ft. away after the collision. 8. The doctor was examined as P.W.4. and he stated that the claimant had lacerated injuries over the right molar region with fracture of the bone underneath and on the right ear, and that even after healing of the fracture, a scar remained on the face of the claimant. 9. The driver of the lorry was examined as R.W.I. He deposed that the hand cart was going with heavy load which they could not drag, that it slided back and hit the lorry and that the lorry was going at a low speed of 5 miles an hour. He stressed the fact that it was an ascent where the hand cart was going and therefore it had slided back. Similar evidence is given by the cleaner R.W.2. 10. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of R.W. 1 and 2 that the hand cart slided back, that the brakes were applied and the lorry came to a stop immediately and did not go forward; and on that finding he held that no case of negligence had been made out against the driver and that the claimant was not entitled to any damages. If, however, he should be held entitled to damages, the learned Judge was of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 1,225/-would be reasonable; namely Rs. 225/-for loss of earning capacity for six weeks and Rs. 1,000/- for disfigurement of the face. 11. In the forefront of his arguments Mr. Syed Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Appellant, stressed that the defence that the hand cart slided back and hit the lorry was not suggested in the written statement at all and was not even put to P. Ws. 2 and 3 in cross-examination. 1,000/- for disfigurement of the face. 11. In the forefront of his arguments Mr. Syed Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Appellant, stressed that the defence that the hand cart slided back and hit the lorry was not suggested in the written statement at all and was not even put to P. Ws. 2 and 3 in cross-examination. This was obviously a good point, but I found that it was elicited from the driver and the cleaner in cross examination that they put forward this version even in their statement to the police immediately after the occurrence. That, if true, would rob the criticism of the learned Counsel for the Appellant of its sting and it would only amount to carelessness on the part of the Respondent in not taking the necessary plea in the written statement and putting questions in the cross-examination of the witnesses. Of course, the question would still remain whether the statement made by the driver and the cleaner to the police was only self-serving and not true. On these points I wanted to verify whether really R. Ws. 1 and 2 had made such statements to the police the same night, because if no such statement had been made, it would follow that that defence would be false. But I found from the police records that such a statement had been made but with this modification that according to the driver the cart slided back only 3 ft. and then Esurathnam who was dragging the cart turned it right. The actual statement is: all of a sudden the man who was pushing from behind came 3 ft. backward and pushed the cart. At that time the man who was in front turned the cart to the right side. At that time the bumper of my lorry touched the person who was behind. 12. Since the statement was made shortly afterwards and it is not improbable that the hand cart slided back, because it was on an ascent and the cart was loaded, I accept the defence to this extent that the cart slided back, but it was only for a distance of 3 ft. 12. Since the statement was made shortly afterwards and it is not improbable that the hand cart slided back, because it was on an ascent and the cart was loaded, I accept the defence to this extent that the cart slided back, but it was only for a distance of 3 ft. But this cannot absolve the Respondent of blame for the collision because it is clear from the evidence of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, P W. 1, that the foot brake was inefficient only 30%, less than the minimum efficiency required and further the hand brake was totally absent. The inefficiency of the foot brake and the absence of the hand brake are themselves proof of culpable negligence, as pointed out by Ramaswami, J., in re Parthasarathy (1959) l M.L.J. 46 (51). The learned Judge says that it would constitute culpable negligence, if a driver drives a vehicle with patently defective brakes or fails to apply the brakes in time. It is also clear that if the hand cart slided only 3 ft. and the collision took place, the lorry was going very close to the cart. That also constituted an act of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry; it should not have gone so close. On account of these facts, I hold that notwithstanding the sliding back of the hand cart the Respondent is liable to pay some amount as damages to the Appellant. 13. The quantum of damages is not always easy to define. But so far as this case is concerned, a sum of Rs. 225/- for loss of earning capacity may be taken as correct. It seems to me, however, that the sum of Rs. 1,000/- which the learned Judge was inclined to award for the permanent disfigurement of the face is low and that this may be increased to a sum of Rs. 1,500/- Accordingly, I would award damages of Rs. 1,725/- in all and in addition give Rs. 100/- as costs in each of the Court below and in this appeal, which will include the court-fee paid. The Respondent is given a month's time to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,725/-plus Rs. 200/-.