V. D. Misra, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to the injured respondent. The respondent has also filed cross-objections claiming enhancement of the compensation. ( 2 ) KUMARI Lalita, who was aged about 8 years, has become a cripple as a result of the accident by the appellant s bus on 6. 12. 61. She was standing at the bus stand of Vinay Nagar Colony, Ring Road, waiting for the bus. All of a sudden a DTU bus No. DLP 705 driven by Suresh Chander came there and crushed her. Extensive injuries were received by her. According to the doctors, she will never be the same again. It is doubtful that she would become normal in future having lost the use of various limbs. ( 3 ) AFTER the accident she filed an application for compensation claiming Rs. 1,00,000. 00. The application was resisted and it was stated that the accident was due to her negligence only since she was running across the road. Various other pleas taken up by the appellants were given up and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was required to find out whether the injuries received by her were due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus in question; whether the injured was guilty of contributory negligence, if so to what effect; and to assess amount of compensation to which the injured was entitled. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. It also found that the injured was also responsible for this accident her contributory negligence being to the extent of 20%. A sum of Rs 15,000. 00 was assessed as compensation and after deducting 20% therefrom awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00, and that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver. ( 4 ) MR. R. L. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the amount of compensation awarded is very high. ( 5 ) THE injured has examined three eye-witnesses to prove the negligence of the bus driver. These are Ram Parshad Shukla (AW2), Nandan Gopal (AW3) and Gurcharan Singh (AW5 ). ( 4 ) MR. R. L. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the amount of compensation awarded is very high. ( 5 ) THE injured has examined three eye-witnesses to prove the negligence of the bus driver. These are Ram Parshad Shukla (AW2), Nandan Gopal (AW3) and Gurcharan Singh (AW5 ). The appellants produced C. H. Sachdev (RW2) Lalit Vashist (RW3), Khushal Chand bus conductor (RW14) and the bus driver Suresh Chander (RW5) as eye-witnesses. ( 6 ) RAM Parshad Shukla is employed in the Special Police, Delhi, and is resident of South Vinay Nagar. He came to the bus stop at about 9 30 a. m. While he was waiting for the bus, a friend of his came there and they decided to catch bus of route No. 19, and so they went across the road and started waiting for the bus. He noticed that some children had also crossed the road and come there. These included the injured and her brother. The injured was waiting just near the foot path when the bus came at a fast speed and hit Kumari Lalita with its front left mud-guard. Her feet were crushed and she was immediately sent to the nearby Safdarjang Hospital. He had noticed the bus from a distance of about half a furlong. He was positive that the injured had crossed the road and was waiting for the bus. According to him. The bus was full and the injured had signalled the bus to stop. He admitted that he was never examined by the police. ( 7 ) THE next witness is Madan Gopal (AW3) who is a student of Deshbandhu College. He was waiting for the bus when he noticed that few persons along with children had crossed the road and had come to the place where he was waiting for the bus. He corrorated AW 2 in other details. In cross-examination he stated that the accident took place about 5 to 6 paces from the bus stop. The bus in question belonged to route No. 24 and was full. He had heard the double bell given by the bus conductor which meant that the bus was not required to stop. It actually stopped after the accident. He left after the accident in another bus for his college. He was not examined by the police. The bus in question belonged to route No. 24 and was full. He had heard the double bell given by the bus conductor which meant that the bus was not required to stop. It actually stopped after the accident. He left after the accident in another bus for his college. He was not examined by the police. ( 8 ) THE third eye witness is Gurcharan Singh (AW5) and is aged 14 years. He is a student of VIIIth Class. He corroborates the previous two witnesses. According to him, Kumari Lalita was standing on the opposite side of the road where he was standing. She crossed the road along with other persons and stood near the pavement when she was hit and run over by the left wheel of the bus. He was positive that Kumari Lalita along with others had fully crossed the road before the accident took place. He stated that the accident took place on the pavement and Kumari Lalita was standing in front of other passengers in order to board the bus. His statement had been recorded by the police-during the investigation of the criminal case. It is the First Information Report on the basis of which a case under sections 279/337, Indian Penal Code, was registered. ( 9 ) PARKASH Singh, Sub Inspector of Parliament Street, Police Station, investigated the case. He had reached the spot at 10 a. m. and had recorded the statement of Gurcharan Singh. He proved the statement on the basis of which First Information Report was recorded copy of the same is Exhibit A. W. 8/1. He also prepared the site plan, copy of which is Exhibit A. W. 8/2. According to him, the width of the road at the place of the accident is 25 feet. He was told at the spot that the bus was reversed in order to extricate the child lying underneath. He found the bus standing at the spot. Its left side front wheel was also 6 feet away from the edge of the left side of the road. The pavement on the sides of the road is Kacha. He had recorded the statement of Gurcharan Singh at the spot. ( 10 ) C. S. Sachdev (RW 2) is a resident of Hauz Khas. Its left side front wheel was also 6 feet away from the edge of the left side of the road. The pavement on the sides of the road is Kacha. He had recorded the statement of Gurcharan Singh at the spot. ( 10 ) C. S. Sachdev (RW 2) is a resident of Hauz Khas. He stated that he had boarded the bus from Vinay Nagar bus stop and had seen the injured crossing the road from the right hand side of South Vinay Nagar when the driver applied brakes and slowed down but still the accident could not be avoided and one leg of the injured was run over by the wheel of the bus. He was travelling with his friend Lalit Vashisht. He admitted that the bus was fully packed and he did not know whether the bus was going to stop at the bus stop in question or not. He could not say which part of the bus struck the injured. He could not say whether she was run over by the left wheel or the right wheel. ( 11 ) LALIT Vashisht is R. W. 3. According to him, the bus was at a slow speed when it reached the bus stop in question. Hewas standing inside the bus and was near the driver s seat. He had seen the girl crossing from right to left and she was running. The driver had tried to turn to the left while applying the brakes but the accident took place. He is a colleague of R. W. 2. According to him, the bus was crowded. He did not remember whether the bus had a double door or a single door. He did not remember how many times the conductor rang the bell. In fact he did not remember whether he rang any bell at all. He did not remember which part of the bus struck the child whether it was left front wheel. According to him the girl received injuries on the lower part of the body. ( 12 ) KHUSHAL Chand, conductor of the bus, appeared as R. W. 4. According to him when the bus was at a distance of about 15 paces from the bus stop he rang the bell to stop the bus. According to him the girl received injuries on the lower part of the body. ( 12 ) KHUSHAL Chand, conductor of the bus, appeared as R. W. 4. According to him when the bus was at a distance of about 15 paces from the bus stop he rang the bell to stop the bus. A girl came from the right side of the road and struck against the left wheel of the bus which was immediately stopped. He admitted in cross-examination that he was selling the tickets when the accident took place. According to him, the bus was not full and only 3 or 4 passengers were standing while the rest were sitting. He was facing the passengers when he was selling the tickets. Suresh Chander driver appeared as R. W. 5. He stated that when he neared the bus stop the conductor rang a bell and he slowed the speed. As he was about to stop, a girl came from the right side of the bus. She was running and was crossing the road in order to board the bus. She struck against the bumper and fell down. He stopped the bus at a distance of about 5 yards from the bus stop. According to him, his speed was only 4 to 5 miles an hour at that time. In cross-examination be stated that he was driving from the previous bus stop at a speed of 10 miles an hour. He admitted that the bus was full to capacity and no passenger had to get down at the bus stop in question. He, however, stated that since he had to get the time recorded, so he was to stop the bus. He further stated that he was driving at the speed of 5 miles an hour from a distance of about 800 yards from the place of accident. He could not say whether the girl, who met with the accident, was seriously injured or not. He admitted that the bus was about 2 to 3 feet away from the pavement at the time of accident. ( 13 ) IT is true that two contradictory versions have been placed by the parties in respect of this accident. But that is not unusual. The Tribunal relied on the statement of Gurcharan Singh (AW5) only and held that the presence of Ram Parshad and Madan Gopal at the spot was doubtful. ( 13 ) IT is true that two contradictory versions have been placed by the parties in respect of this accident. But that is not unusual. The Tribunal relied on the statement of Gurcharan Singh (AW5) only and held that the presence of Ram Parshad and Madan Gopal at the spot was doubtful. The only reason for doubting the presence of these two witnesses is that they were never examined by the police nor did they appear before the Magistrate in a criminal case against the driver. The learned Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the driver was in fact never challaned. This is specifically stated by the driver in his statement. Under what circumstances the police decided not to challan the driver, has not been brought on record. The question of any one appearing before the Magistrate, therefore, does not arise. The learned Tribunal did not give any reason as to why the statements of these two persons were "not very convincing. " In fact, after reproducing their statements the learned Tribunal has not cared to comment on the same. I see no reason why these two persons should not be believed. Ram Parshad Shukla (AW2) is employed in the Special Police. He was living in South Vinay Nagar and it was, therefore, natural for him to be present at the bus stop in order to catch the bus. He of course did not wait after the accident for the arrival of the police in order to make a statement. This is unfortunate indeed. But this is a common fact. It is well-known that mostly persons are not willing to sacrifice their time and undergo the inconvenience of waiting for the arrival of the police and making a statement, and this by itself cannot be a good ground for disbelieving the presence of a person. The statement of Ram Parshad Shukla is in fact fully corroborated by the statement of other witnesses including the statement of Gurcharan Singh (AW5 ). He stated among other facts that the bus had taken a slight turn near the bus stop when the front left mud-guard hit the girl. The bus was reversed and then she was taken out from under it. Even R. W. 3 states that on seeing the girl the driver tried to turn to the left while applying the brakes, and thereafter the accident took place. The bus was reversed and then she was taken out from under it. Even R. W. 3 states that on seeing the girl the driver tried to turn to the left while applying the brakes, and thereafter the accident took place. I find that this witness has given a correct version and there is nothing to doubt his veracity. Similarly, there is nothing to doubt the version given by Madan Gopal (AW3 ). He is a college student and would have been naturally anxious to reach the college. He must have thought like every one that some one will wait for the arrival of the police to make a statement. I find he is actually corroborated by the statement of the bus driver inasmuch as that he stated that this bus was not to stop since the bus was full and he had heard a double bell. According to the driver the bus was full and was not required to stop for alighting passengers. The only reason given by the driver to stop at that place was that he had to get the time recorded. It is for the first time that the driver has given this reason which was not supported by the conductor or by other evidence. Gurcharan Singh (AW5) has rightly been relied upon. He is a young student reading in VIIIth class and is aged 14 years. He belongs to the nearby locality. He was present at the time the police came and I can imagine that being so young he took the usual child s interest in the developments and was available when the police arrived. I see no reason to disbelieve him. The only reason for assailing bis statement is that according to him the accident took place on the pavement, whereas in fact it took place on the road just near the pavement. This discrepancy is not material. I will have more to say about it later on. ( 14 ) THE witnesses produced by the appellants in respect of the accident have rightly not been relied upon by the Tribunal. It may be that R. W. 2 and R. W. 3 were travelling in the bus, but either they did not see the accident or were purposely giving a wrong version. The bus admittedly was fully packed and both these witnesses were standing. According to them, they were standing near the driver. It may be that R. W. 2 and R. W. 3 were travelling in the bus, but either they did not see the accident or were purposely giving a wrong version. The bus admittedly was fully packed and both these witnesses were standing. According to them, they were standing near the driver. Even if that be so, it is very difficult to see the road ahead while standing in a bus. They would have only felt the brakes, the sudden jerks and the shouts of people standing outside and thereafter found that the accident had taken place. R. W. 2 does not even remember whether the girl was run over under the left or right wheel. He could not even say which part of the bus struck the girl. R. W. 3, who is a colleague of R. W. 2, was in a similar situation. According to him, hewas also standing in the bus near the driver. He did not remember whether the bus was having one door for exit or two doors. He did not even remember whether the conductor had rung the bell or not. He could only say that the girl had received injuries on the lower part of the body. All this showed that he had not even cared to see the injured minutely. It is possible that he may not have cared to see the ghastly sight of a bleeding child whose limbs had been crushed. Khushal Chand, conductor of the bus, admittedly, was selling tickets and was facing the passengers at the time of the accident and so there was no possibility for him to see how the accident took place. The driver himself was out to show that he was not negligent. His statement on the very face of it is unbelievable. If he was going even at the speed of 10 miles an hour at the time of the accident, there was no possibility of the accident taking place unless he was looking somewhere else instead of the road. They have been correctly disbelieved. ( 15 ) I find that the learned Tribunal had mainly relied on the statement of S. I. Parkash Singh who appeared as A. W. 8. They have been correctly disbelieved. ( 15 ) I find that the learned Tribunal had mainly relied on the statement of S. I. Parkash Singh who appeared as A. W. 8. It is from his evidence that the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contention of Kumari Lalita that she was standing just near the edge of the left side of the road is not proved. I am constrained to remark that this approach of the Tribunal was fully erroneous. This witness had not seen the accident and had reached after half an hour. He could not naturally be a witness to what he found when he reached there. Site Plan (Exhibit A. W. 8/2) only shows the situation after the accident and at the time of this witness reaching there. Simply because this witness found the left side front wheel at a distance of 6 feet from the edge of the left side of the road, is no ground to come to the conclusion that the contention of the injured that she was standing near the edge of the left side of the road is disproved. First of all it has to be remembered that there is no raised pavement, but it is a kacha one in the form of a berm. Moreover, according to the witnesses discussed above, the driver had taken a sudden turn. Again, according to the driver the left wheel was 2 feet to 3 feet from the pavement. These facts show that the contention of the injured is proved that she was either on the pavement or just near to it. According to the witnesses she was standing ahead of others in order to go to board the bus and had in fact signalled. Her anxiety to board the bus was there and she was anxious that the bus should stop. But that does not mean that she was running across the road in order to reach that end to catch the bus as suggested by the witnesses produced by the appellants. The learned Tribunal erred again in coming to the conclusion that the accident took place when she was in the process of crossing the road since the only evidence about it was by the witnesses produced by the appellants. The learned Tribunal erred again in coming to the conclusion that the accident took place when she was in the process of crossing the road since the only evidence about it was by the witnesses produced by the appellants. The fact of the accident taking place near the bus stop is not only supported by the witnesses on behalf of the injured but also by the witnesses produced by the appellants. According to the driver, the bus stop was at a distance of 5 yards from the place where the bus stopped. A. W. 3 stated that the accident took place at a distance of about 5 to 6 paces from the bus stop. In fact A. W. 2 in cross-examination explains the situation by stating that he was at a distance of about 10 paces from the place of accident on the bus stop which is with a shelter. There seem to be two places for Stopping the buses. One is the bus stop having the shelter and the other being the place where the accident took place. The latter one was also meant for the buses to stop. According to A. W. 5, the buses of routes Nos. 19, 24 and 27 stopped there. The statement of A. W. 8 that the bus stop is at a distance of about 30 to 40 feet from the place of accident, does not mean that the accident had not taken place near the bus stop as stated by A. Ws. 2 and 3. The distance given by A. W. 2 by stating 10 paces comes to about 30 feet. Moreover, A. W. 8 S. I. Parkash Singh was making a statement after about three years of the accident, i. e. 4. 1. 1964. This statement was merely his guess work dependent on his memory. I have seen the rough site plan made by this witness (Exhibit A. W. 8/2 ). According to this site plan the bus stop is shown practically next to the place of accident, and there is no bus stop shown at a distance of 30 to 40 feet as stated by him. It is true that there is a bus stand of D. T. U. shown which is far away but is not shown anywhere near the road. It is true that there is a bus stand of D. T. U. shown which is far away but is not shown anywhere near the road. From his evidence it cannot be reasonably concluded that the accident had not taken place at the place stated by the A. Ws. ( 16 ) IN my judgment the evidence clearly shows that the accident had taken place as alleged by the injured in her petition and was because of the negligence of the driver of the bus. She was not crossing at the time the accident took place but was standing on or near the pavement and she had signalled the bus to stop which was not likely to stop because of its being full and the conductor having rung the double bell. The reason for stopping as given by the driver is not supported by any evidence and no suggestion was made to A. Ws. that there was any such system of recording the bus timings as stated by the driver. Even the conductor of the bus is silent on this aspect. If there was any such system of recording bus timing, the conductor must have know and there was no reason for him to forget about it while making his statement. Thus, bus being full to capacity, the conductor must have given the double bell as stated by A. W. 3. The bus must have come near the pavement because of the signal given by the injured for the bus to stop. May be, the driver was in two minds whether to stop the bus or not since the bus was full to the capacity and no passenger had to alight at that stop. Be that as it may, the accident was the result of the negligence of the bus driver alone and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the injured. ( 17 ) DR. S. M. Tuli (A. W. 1) is the Junior Orthopaedic Surgeon of Safdarjang Hospital who attended on Kumari Lalita when she was removed to the hospital immediately after the accident. She had to remain in the hospital till 12. 6. 1962, i. e. for a period of more than six months. Even thereafter, she had been attending the hospital till the time this witness gave his statement on 25. 2. 1963. She had to remain in the hospital till 12. 6. 1962, i. e. for a period of more than six months. Even thereafter, she had been attending the hospital till the time this witness gave his statement on 25. 2. 1963. Fractures of right scapula, right humerus, right forearm, right femur and leg were confirmed by X-rays. According to the doctor, "she has got post- head injury (neurasthenia, i. e. , patient is uncordinated and un-cooperative in her activities. Without any reason the patient may start laughing, crying and give purposeless expressions ). Besides, shehas got perineal tear of third degree which would hinder her normal functions as a mother. She is not able to walk at this time. She may take many years to walk and even when she walks she would limp. She is still under my treatment". He further stated that she is permanently disabled and she will be more a liability to the attendants. The right femur had not joined and this doctor was planning a bone grafting operation. Dr. (Mrs.) K. K. Sharma (AW6) is the Gynaecologist in Safdarjang Hospital. Kumari Lalita was under her treatment also for severe laceration of perineum etc. This doctor is doubtful very much if Kumari Lalita would be normal at all, whether she would be able to have confinement through normal passages. Further operations had still to be performed. The doctor noticed that the mental development of the injured had retarded and she could not even answer questions. This is the result of the injuries sustained by her. Control over bowel action had been lost and the doctor was doubtful if even after surgical operation her bowel function will ever be normal again. ( 18 ) BOTH these doctors are experts in their branches of medicine. Dr. Tuli holds degree of the Master of Surgery with many years of experience to his credit. Dr. Sharma holds a foreign degree of Dohst RCOG (M. R. C. O. G.) ( 19 ) THE medical evidence shows that Kumari Lalita has become a cripple and she will never be in a position even to look after herself. She will always be in the need of an attendant. There is no possiblity of her marriage. At the time of accident she was studying in IInd Class of Andhra Higher Secondary School in Rous Avenue, New Delhi. She will always be in the need of an attendant. There is no possiblity of her marriage. At the time of accident she was studying in IInd Class of Andhra Higher Secondary School in Rous Avenue, New Delhi. The family circumstances, as deposed to by her father, Shri N. R. Nippani (AW9), show that she comes of a middle class family where the girls are reasonably educated and then go in for service. ( 20 ) REDUCED prospect of marriage by itself is a material loss. If on account of an accident because of disfigurement of the loss of limbs the prospect of a person to have the enjoyment and the bliss of a married life is seriously reduced, he is entitled to be compensated. Kemp on Quantum of Damages, Volume I, second edition, on page 15 discusses under the heading "material loss other than loss of earnings" the result of injuries suffered by a female thus : "in the case of a female plaintiff serious injury or disfigurement may greatly reduce her prospects of marriage. Quite apart from other aspects of the matter, which fall to be considered under the head of loss of amenities, such a matter would represent a real material loss, especially in the case of a woman who regarded marriage as her real prospective career, and who had not been educated or trained for anything else. An injury which handicaps her in the marriage market represents a real pecuniary loss". ( 21 ) THE class of society to which the injured belongs, getting married and settling down, is the usual career of girls. They also go in for service usually before the marriage and continue in the same the husband agree to it. In case a husband does not desire his wife to be in service after marriage, the result is she is wholly supported and looked after by her husband. In case she is allowed to continue in service she contributes towards the upkeep of the family including herself. In the instant case, as already discussed, the injured would neither be able to get married nor would be able to maintain herself. ( 22 ) IT is very difficult indeed to adequately compensate an injured. Many imponderables are involved, in spite of best efforts exact calculations cannot be made. In the instant case, as already discussed, the injured would neither be able to get married nor would be able to maintain herself. ( 22 ) IT is very difficult indeed to adequately compensate an injured. Many imponderables are involved, in spite of best efforts exact calculations cannot be made. But the amount awarded should be such which can be reasonably said to compensate the injured for the consequences of an accident. It should not be so high that the injured could be said to have made a profit out of the accident nor should it be so low that it would hardly meet the situation resulting from the accident. ( 23 ) THE Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000. 00 as general damages and Rs. 13,000. 00 under the heading "probable future loss of income by reason of incapacity or diminished capacity to work". In my opinion, this amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 is too low and is grossly inadequate. Kumari Lalita will require a constant attendant throughout her life. She will be in need of medicines and treatment because of the injuries received by her. There is no chance of her marriage or of her earning. She will not be able to maintain herself. Normally a person may be expected to live till the age of 65 years, but because of this accident her normal expectancy of life can be taken to have been reduced to 55 years. Thus, there is a period of 47 years which she has to pass in this condition. The compensation should be adequate to see her through this period. ( 24 ) MR R. L. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants, has referred to a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tarlochan Singh v. The Stale of Punjab and others1, where a total amount of Rs. 23,000. 00 was awarded to achild aged 4 years. The facts show that only the left leg of the child had been crushed and it had to be amputated from above the knee. No other injury was received by the child. Moreover, the child had not asked for increase in the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal and the High Court had only upheld the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. No other injury was received by the child. Moreover, the child had not asked for increase in the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal and the High Court had only upheld the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. Even on the basis of this case, Lalita, who is a a complete cripple with the injuries referred to above, deserves a bigger amount. The decision in Ayesha Begum v. G. Veerappan and others,2 has again no relevance to the present case inasmuch as the injured girl had her pelvic bone dislocated and the sacroiliac joint was also fractured and dislocated. There was no other injury. It was in these circumstances that the High Court had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 5,000. 00 to Rs. 15,000. 00 only. ( 25 ) A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Sudhaker and another3, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00 the amount of general damages of a child of 4 or 5 years who had compound fracture of right tibia and fibula lower joint with infection of the wound as a result of accident and had developed a permanent limp which was likely to become a permanent physical disability. ( 26 ) A division Bench of the Madras High Court in K. Gopalakrishnan v. Sankara Narayanan and others4, upheld the award of Rs. 57,865. 37, in the case of a student aged 20 years, studying in the First Year B. Pharmacy in the Medical College whose left leg had to be amputated above the knee. ( 27 ) NONE of the decisions referred to above cover the present case. However, they are a helpful guide to the assessment of compensation. ( 28 ) KEEPING in view all the circumstances of the case and the fact of acceleration of payment in a lump sum. I am of the opinion that the total amount of Rs. 50,000. 00 would be a reasonable sum as compensation to Kumari Lalita. ( 29 ) THE result is that the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed.