B. C. Misra, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order has been filed by Mrs. Somawanti injured against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 30th November, 1966 by which it has awarded to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,325. 00 on account of compensation for the injuries and the damage suffered by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE accident giving rise to the injuries occurred on 8th February, 1964. The petitioner along with one Vinod Kumari was travelling in a three wheeler scooter bearing No. D. L. R. 4134 from Mori Gate side to Tis Hazari. At that time a truck bearing No. DLG 6916, which was owned by M/s Rama Transport Company and was being driven by Surjit Singh, son of Mr. Kashmira Singh, came at a very fast speed and without blowing any horn left his side and went on the wrong side of the road and struck the scooter, as a result of which the scooter was badly damaged and the petitioner received multiple injuries, including fracture of the skull. She was admitted in the Irwin Hospital where she remained an indoor patient till 16th May, 1964, that is to say for about 3 months. According to the petitioner, she suffered considerable injuries and her legs were broken and her memory was impaired and then she went to Bombay and remained there for treatment till March, 1965. She filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 30. 000. 00. ( 3 ) IT may at this stage be mentioned that Mrs. Vinod Kumari, the other passenger in the scooter, was also injured and she filed her claim for recovery of Rs. 20,000. 00 which has been decided by a common judgment. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,450. 00 with costs to Mrs. Vinod Kumari. She has not filed any appeal and we are not concerned with her case any longer. ( 4 ) AS against the claim of Rs. 30. 000. 00 preferred by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,325. 00 as mentioned above together with costs. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the insurance company with which the truck was insured was for the entire amount awarded. ( 4 ) AS against the claim of Rs. 30. 000. 00 preferred by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,325. 00 as mentioned above together with costs. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the insurance company with which the truck was insured was for the entire amount awarded. ( 5 ) BY the impugned order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injuries had been caused to the petitioner by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. This was subject-matter of issue No. 2. In answer to issue No. 3, the Tribunal repelled the contention and it granted the relief mentioned above. During the course of the trial, the driver of the truck was not examined and no evidence was produced on behalf of the truck owner or the Insurance Company. No appeal or cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the driver or the truck owner or the Insurance Company. The result is that the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent act of the respondents and the liability of the respondents have become final and the same have not been challenged before me by the counsel for the respondents either. ( 6 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal claiming enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to Rs. 30,000. 00. The appellant had received the following injuries : "1. Multiple lacerated wounds. 2. C. L. W. over right angle of the jaw. 3. Contused lacerated wound over right leg. 4. Fracture of mandible left side. 5. Fracture of lower third portion of radius left side. 6. Fracture of lower third portion of tibia and lower end of febula left side. 7. Fracture of torsel bone with arrow mark and in the toe of second metatarsal bone left foot. " From the evidence of Dr. Srivastava, Public witness 4, it is evident that the appellant had been admitted in the Irwin Hospital on 8th February, 1964 and was discharged on 15th May, 1965. At the time of her admission, she was in a semi conscious state. The doctor said that she was not completely cured when she was discharged from the hospital, but he could not state whether the injuries caused to her constituted a permanent disability because the doctor had last examined her on 2nd April, 1964. At the time of her admission, she was in a semi conscious state. The doctor said that she was not completely cured when she was discharged from the hospital, but he could not state whether the injuries caused to her constituted a permanent disability because the doctor had last examined her on 2nd April, 1964. She was treated as a free patient and nothing was charged from her. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter she went to Bombay and was treated by the doctors in Bombay on various dates till March, 1965. There is no doubt that the injuries caused to the appellant were serious and she must have suffered severe pain during the period. The treatment in the hospital as an indoor patient lasted more than three months and thereafter also she continued to suffer. Even though the disability of the appellant was not permanent, still for the discomfort and pain and physical and mental injury, I would award to her another sum of Rs. 1. 500. 00 over the amount of Rs. 3,500. 00 allowed by the Tribunal below. ( 7 ) THE appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 3. 000. 00 on account of expenses incurred by her on her treatment by Bombay doctors and the Tribunal below has allowed Rs. 500. 00. There are no receipts of the medicines or fees charged by the doctors produced by the appellant. There is a letter by Dr. (Mrs) Sitha Gupta at New Delhi dated 27th June, 1964 to Dr. Allahbudin. There is a report of the Breach Candy Hospital and Nursing Home. Then there are Pathological and Bacteriological reports dated 20th June, 1964 (Exhibit Public witness 12/21) and 9th August, 1964 (Exhibit Public witness 12/25. Also there is an X-ray report dated 8th July, 1964 (Exhibit Public witness 12/23 ). This is followed by the reports for the months of February, 1965, March, 1965 and lastly April, 1965. This shows that the appellant was standing in need of examination and treatment till that period. No bill or receipt or prescription of any doctor in Bombay has been filed by the appellant. The Court below has allowed Rs. 500. 00. Considering the point that the fees of doctors and charges of the laboratories in Bombay are high, her observation and treatment for a prolonged period upto March, 1965 must have caused substantial amount to the appellant. The Court below has allowed Rs. 500. 00. Considering the point that the fees of doctors and charges of the laboratories in Bombay are high, her observation and treatment for a prolonged period upto March, 1965 must have caused substantial amount to the appellant. I would, therefore, increase the amount by Rs. 1,000. 00 over and above Rs. 500. 00 allowed by the Tribunal. ( 8 ) THE appellant had broken her jaw and so she had to obtain a full denture set. A receipt filed by the appellant (Exhibit Public witness 12/28) issued by Dr. Gope P. Advani, Dental Surgeon, at Bombay, for a sum of Rs. 500. 00 in the Court below has been accepted and the Court has allowed Rs. 350. 00 on account of cost of full denture set but has disallowed Rs. 125. 00 on account of visiting charges and Rs. 25. 00 on account of consulting charges. There was no reason to disallow the same. I would, therefore, add Rs. 150. 00 on account of the said charges. ( 9 ) THE appellant must be getting special nourishing diet. The Court below has allowed Rs, 500. 00, but it must not be forgotten that she was suffering pain even after discharge from the Irwin Hospital. She, therefore, stood in need of special diet up to March, 1965. I shall, therefore, add another sum of Rs. 500. 00 over the amount allowed by the Tribunal on account of special diet and nourishment. ( 10 ) MR. Oberoi has strongly pressed that the Court below ought to have allowed damages for loss of income. He has stated that the appellant was a managing Director of a limited company known as Lila Ram and Company Private Limited and a partner in a few other concerns. It has been admitted in evidence that she was not a working partner. Public witness 12, son of the appellant, however, stated that his mother (appellant before me) was 55 years old, but she was not a working partner, but he did not produce any resolution of the company fixing her remuneration. There is no evidence of any loss of income to the appellant. The statement filed by the appellant being Exhibit Public witness 12/29 shows the amount paid to the appellant by Lila Ram and Company Private Limited from 4th April, 1964 to 8th March, 1965 which is Rs. 9,619. 25. There is no evidence of any loss of income to the appellant. The statement filed by the appellant being Exhibit Public witness 12/29 shows the amount paid to the appellant by Lila Ram and Company Private Limited from 4th April, 1964 to 8th March, 1965 which is Rs. 9,619. 25. This is wholly irrelevant to establish that the appellant was earning any income and had suffered any loss. There is absolutely no evidence to show what were the earnings of the appellant prior to the accident and what was the loss suffered by her on account of her suffering caused by the accident. In the absence of any evidence, no amount can be allowed to her on this count. How ever, I have increased by Rs. 1,500. 00 the general damages and this would cover the loss of the income suffered by the appellant, if any. ( 11 ) MR. Oberoi has very strongly pressed that the appellant should be allowed air fare for going to Bombay vide Exhibits Public witness 12/19 and Public witness 12/20 and charges of Aya amounting to Rs. 2,625. 00 (Exhibit Public witness 12/27) and the charges of Fourbhai Private Limited (Exhibit Public witness 12/16 ). No reliance whatsoever can be placed on the said documents. The air tickets (Exhibit Public witness 12/19) have not been issued in the name of the appellant, nor was the other ticket Exhibit Public witness 12/20 issued in the name of her husband. These tickets are respectively in the name of Mrs. C. R. Marwaha and Mr. C. R. Marwaha which are admittedly not the name of the appellant or any relation of her. The tickets had also been purchased on or about 8th May, 1964 and are for the flight to Bombay leaving on 15th May, 1964. These air tickets do not relate to the appellant at all and it is again inconceivable that these tickets would be purchased by the appellant at the time when she was still confined to the hospital and she did not know as to when she would be discharged. The witness Public witness 12 has stated that his father incurred Rs 500. 00 on the fare to Bombay. This again is not correct since the fare shown on the ticket is only Rs. 233. 00 each. The witness Public witness 12 has stated that his father incurred Rs 500. 00 on the fare to Bombay. This again is not correct since the fare shown on the ticket is only Rs. 233. 00 each. I am, therefore, satisfied that these tickets do not relate to the appellant and there is no justification for allowing the said item to the appellant. ( 12 ) NO reliance can be placed on the receipt Exhibit Public witness 12/27, issued by one Padma Bai for serving as Aya at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per day from 16th May, 1964 to 31st October, 1965 amounting to Rs. 2,625. 00. These receipts are not of the amount paid from month to month. It is not possible to believe that an Aya working at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per day received the consolidated amount of Rs. 2,625. 00 after about 17 months of the engagement. It is again not believable that the Aya was kept by the appellant during the later period of her recovery from the trouble while no Aya was engaged by her in Delhi when her condition was serious. Similarly Exhibit Public witness 12/26 does not indicate any exact period. The receipt bears the date as 20th March, 1965 and the period given is extremely vague. It is not issued on any printed bill or receipt book. It vaguely receites : "received from Mrs. Somavati L. Marwah, for the period given below, namely : Rs. 10. 00 per day for 4 months. . . . Rs. 1,200. 00 Rs. 5. 00 per month for 6 months half- time Rs. 850. 00 Total: Rs. 2,050. 00 This receipt does not even bear any stamp. The receipt is, therefore, rejected. ( 13 ) MR. Oberoi has again pressed that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the price of the surgical bed for Rs. 325. 00. The Tribunal below has rightly disallowed it on the ground that the date of receipt was 6th February, 1964 which was earlier than the date of the accident which occurred on 8th February, 1964. This receipt, therefore, does not relate to the appellant. ( 14 ) MR. Oberoi has next contended that a wheel chair had been purchased by the appellant for Rs. 315. 00 on 5th May, 1964. Its cash memo is Exhibit P. 12/16 which is for a sum of Rs. 300. This receipt, therefore, does not relate to the appellant. ( 14 ) MR. Oberoi has next contended that a wheel chair had been purchased by the appellant for Rs. 315. 00 on 5th May, 1964. Its cash memo is Exhibit P. 12/16 which is for a sum of Rs. 300. 00. The Court below has allowed for it a sum of Rs. 157. 50. According to the case of the petitioner, she was in the Irwin hospital as an indoor patient till 15th May, 1964 and thereafter she went to Bombay, but it is not stated that wheel chair had been taken by her to Bombay or any other wheel chair had been purchased there. The Court was, therefore, justified in allowing the amount it did. Moreover a wheel chair after use could be resold and it was not an item which could be consumed by the appellant during the period of her illness and its resale value has got to be deducted from the price of the chair. Therefore, I do not find any justification for any increase on account of the purchase of the wheel chair. ( 15 ) THE counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that the Court below has grossly erred in only allowing the appellant Rs. 80. 00 on account of purchase of medicines during the period of her illness in Delhi as against a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 claimed by her. I have carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence produced on the file. The counsel has not been able to point out any cash memo or the voucher of the medicines purchased by the appellant during the course of her illness in Delhi which has been disallowed by the Tribunal below. No ground has, therefore, been made out for increase of the compensation on this count. Moreover I have already increased the amount incurred by the appellant on account oftreatment in Bombay by Rs. 1,000. 00 making it Rs. 1,500. 00 and this would take care of any price of the medicines, if any purchased by the appellant. Accordingly, I do not find any justification for any further increase on the amount of damages awarded to the appellant. ( 16 ) AS a result, the total amount enhanced by me comes to Rs. 3,150. 00. 00 making it Rs. 1,500. 00 and this would take care of any price of the medicines, if any purchased by the appellant. Accordingly, I do not find any justification for any further increase on the amount of damages awarded to the appellant. ( 16 ) AS a result, the total amount enhanced by me comes to Rs. 3,150. 00. The decree of the Court below is modified and the amount awarded as compensation to the appellant is enhanced by Rs. 3,150. 00 over the amount already allowed by the Tribunal below. The appellant will have proportionate costs from the Insurance Company, respondent No. 3.