JUDGMENT : H.N. Kapoor, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1969 of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, who was acting as Accidents Claims Tribunal in Original suit No. 7 of 1967. The claim of the Plaintiff-Respondent was allowed for Rs. 18,800.00 with proportionate costs, although he has claimed Rs. 25,000.00. Dr. Ram Nath Jaidka was a passenger in Roadways Bus No. U.P.D. 4229 on 19.6.1966 when he met with an accident and the bus fell into a Khad on the left side of the road and turned. Dr. Jaidka received several injuries. His case is that the accident was due to high speed of 45 miles per hour while permissible speed was 27 miles per hour. Dr. Jaidka had received several injuries. He was taken to the hospital where his injuries were examined by Dr. J.S. Panwar, P.W. 2, Medical Officer Incharge, Mahoba dispensary. X-ray of the injuries was taken by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Saxena, P.W. 6. It was found that there was fracture of left 4th and 5th ribs and right 5th, 6th and 7th ribs. There was also fracture of left humerus bone. He had also lost two front teeth. He had also sustained an injury on the root of the nose on forehead through which there was severe bleeding. According to the Plaintiff the left portion of his forehead had become sensation less and there was crushing of supra orbital and blood vessels. He remained hospitalised for about six months and could not attend to his duties for three months. He was on half pay of Rs. 200.00 and for all the six months he could not get his non-practising allowance at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month and the allowance of Primary Health Centre at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per month. He also alleged that he had suffered permanent disability and has developed fear complex and as such he would also not be able to earn that much amount which he was earning from his private practice. He also stated that he was seeking early retirement because he has lost efficiency. He was aged about 50 years at the time of the occurrence on 19.6.1966. He gave his age as 52 years at the time of his statement which was recorded on 7.9.1968, He claimed a total amount of Rs. 25.000.00 under the following heads: 1. He also stated that he was seeking early retirement because he has lost efficiency. He was aged about 50 years at the time of the occurrence on 19.6.1966. He gave his age as 52 years at the time of his statement which was recorded on 7.9.1968, He claimed a total amount of Rs. 25.000.00 under the following heads: 1. Physical pains and mental torture Rs.2,000.00 2. Permanent disability caused due to injuries resulted in heavy professional loss ; Rs.15,000.00 3. Loss due to early retirement Rs.5,000.00 4. Loss suffered during the six months of treatment: Rs.16,000.00 5. Expenses incurred in treatment: Rs.14,000.00 2. The suit was contested mainly on behalf of the State. The driver also filed a separate written statement. The General Manager, Transport Commissioner and Conductor of the bus were also impleaded; but it was ultimately found that they were not at all liable. The Defendants pleaded that the bus was being driven at a slow speed, that the driver was not negligent, the accident took place because some she-buffaloes came in front of the bus all of a sudden and in order to avoid them the bus had to turn to extreme left and fell down into the Khad because the road Patri was slippery and muddy. It was denied that the Plaintiff had suffered any permanent disability or had suffered any monetary loss on account of physical pains or mental torture. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the driver, i.e. Defendant No. 4 was driving the bus negligently and at a high speed? 2. Whether the cause of accident was negligence and rash driving by Defendant No. 4? 3. Whether the Plaintiff received injuries and suffered deformity and pain etc. as is alleged in the plaint? 4. Whether Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 can be held responsible for the negligence of Defendant No. 4? 5. To what amount of damages, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled and against which of the Defendants? 3. On issue Nos. 1 and 2 the Tribunal found that the bus was driven at a high speed and the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver, Defendant No. 4 and as such the State Government being master was liable. Issue No. 3 was also decided in the affirmative. 3. On issue Nos. 1 and 2 the Tribunal found that the bus was driven at a high speed and the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver, Defendant No. 4 and as such the State Government being master was liable. Issue No. 3 was also decided in the affirmative. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of Defendants 3 and 4 that the General Manager and the Transport Commissioner were not liable and in issue No. 5 it was held that the conductor was not liable. The Tribunal, however, decreed the claim for Rs. 18,800 after disallowing the claim of Rs. 5,000 for loss due to early retirement and expenses of Rs. 12,000 for treatment. Under this head only a sum of Rs. 2,000 was allowed. On all other heads the claim was decreed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal. 5. Only two main points arise for decision in this appeal, firstly, whether the accident was due to the negligence of the driver, secondly, whether the Plaintiff had suffered from permanent disability and is entitled to the amount of Rs. 15,000 on account of the permanent disability. Learned Standing Counsel has conceded that in case negligence is proved, he would not dispute the amount of Rs. 3,800, which has been allowed on account of physical pains and mental torture suffered during the six months of treatment. Point No. 1 6. Plaintiff was examined as P.W. 3 and Raj Kumar Mishra, P.W. 5 and Nathuram Sharma, P.W. 7 on the point of negligence. On behalf of the defence Lallu as D.W. 2 was examined to prove that there was no negligence, Ramzan Ali, D.W. 3 and Nisar Ahmed D.W. 4 also proved that the accident took place because some she-buffaloes came in the way The Tribunal has given good reasons for preferring the Plaintiff's evidence on this point. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the bus was not being driven at the speed of 45 miles per hour as suggested by the Plaintiff it may be stated that the driver should have taken sufficient precaution to drive the bus slowly when several she-buffaloes were on the road. It is significant that a Magisterial inquiry was held in this case by the S.D.M. and he also held that the accident was caused due to high speed. It is significant that a Magisterial inquiry was held in this case by the S.D.M. and he also held that the accident was caused due to high speed. He recommended to award Rs. 25,000 as damages to the injured. The District Magistrate also agreed with that finding but reduced the damages to Rs. 15,000. Unfortunately the Plaintiff was not given any pie and so he had to seek remedy before the Accidents Claims Tribunal. The report submitted by the high officer as a result of the inquiry is also to the effect that the accident took place as a result of high speed. The report of the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate certainly is not binding and has no legal force but that has some evidentiary value. After considering the entire evidence on the record on this point I find myself in agreement with the findings given by the Tribunal on the point of negligence. Point No. 2 7. It has been seriously disputed on behalf of the State that the Plaintiff suffered from any permanent disability. The learned Standing Counsel has relied on the statement of the Plaintiff himself in the cross-examination that he was still performing operations and no adverse entry was communicated to him. He himself was not able to say whether the patients were dissatisfied with him or not. On this point the evidence of the Plaintiff, who examined himself as P.W. 3 evidence of the Civil Surgeon, Dr. R.L. Nagar, P.W. 1, Dr. Ramesh Chandra, P.W. 6 and of Sri Surajmal Maheshwari, P.W. 4, ex-Special Magistrate may be considered. It is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that the Plaintiff was an efficient physician and surgeon and had good private practice when he was posted at the places where non-practising allowance was not admissible. According to the Plaintiff his private practice was between Rs. 200.00 and 300.00. Surajmal Maheshwari stated that he was posted at Rath for about six years and he had enjoyed very high reputation there. He performed delicate operations of taking out stones from the kidney and even did plastic surgery. He also performed caesarean operations. The Civil Surgeon has also certified about his being an efficient doctor. Dr. Panwar P.W. 2 and Dr. Ramesh Chandra P.W. 6 also deposed that the Plaintiff was reputed to be a good surgeon and physician. He performed delicate operations of taking out stones from the kidney and even did plastic surgery. He also performed caesarean operations. The Civil Surgeon has also certified about his being an efficient doctor. Dr. Panwar P.W. 2 and Dr. Ramesh Chandra P.W. 6 also deposed that the Plaintiff was reputed to be a good surgeon and physician. The Plaintiff has stated on 7.8.1968 that he had four years to retire. It was expected that he would have a good private practice, if he had been posted at a place where there was no non-practising allowance. He could build up a good private practice after retirement. He constructed a house at the cost of Rs. 50,000. His son was a Dental Surgeon and he took some help from him; but he must have spent most of the amount of his own savings. This shows that he must have had good private practice. Learned Standing Counsel stated that he gave evasive reply with regard to the payment of income tax. He only stated that he paid income tax on his salary as well as private practice. He could not give the exact figure. However, the evidence adduced is sufficient to show that he was a capable doctor and ordinarily he would have built up a good private practice. 8. The next point which arises for consideration is whether he was handicapped on account of this accident in building up good private practice in future. He himself has stated that left portion of his face had become sensation less on account of crushing of supra-orbital and blood vessels. No doubt it appears that he regained sensation subsequently; but this injury had left some permanent effect as he developed fear complex and became irritable. On account of the fracture of left humerus, he could not stretch out his left hand freely. Dr. Ramesh Chandra, P.W. 6, who had taken X-ray also stated that as a result of the fracture of left humerus it was not possible to stretch out the hand freely. The learned Standing Counsel argued that his evidence on this point is of no avail as he was not examined as an Expert and he was examined only for proving the X-ray report. He is a Government Doctor and not only a X-ray technician. The learned Standing Counsel argued that his evidence on this point is of no avail as he was not examined as an Expert and he was examined only for proving the X-ray report. He is a Government Doctor and not only a X-ray technician. I see no reason why his evidence cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has no doubt stated that he was still performing operations but he has added that he performs operations only when they were considered absolutely necessary. On account of the fracture of left humerus there could be no doubt that there must have been a loss in his efficiency as a Surgeon. The Tribunal has allowed a sum of Rs. 15,000 only which would work out at Rs. 125.00 per month for 10 years. I do not think that the compensation allowed on account of permanent disability suffered by the Plaintiff can be considered to be at all excessive. It is really surprising that the State Government disregarded the recommendations of the S.D.M. and the District Magistrate and did not allow compensation to the Plaintiff, who was none else but a Government servant. The State Government even filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal and dragged the Plaintiff to this Court depriving him of the benefit of the findings of the Tribunal. 9. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Stay order is vacated.