JUDGMENT : Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.—This appeal is at the instance of the claimant u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The fact relating to the case is that the Petitioner, Appellant herein, was involved in an accident on 29th of May, 1970 at about 6-35 a.m. on Jotindra Mohan Avenue near A.V. School by a private car bearing No. WBG 3956 which, it is alleged, was coming at a very high speed from south to north and dashed in him. It is alleged that the said car was being driven in rash and negligent manner and the accident could easily be avoided if the driver of the said vehicle did not fail to take reasonable care and attention while driving it. It is stated, because of the accident he had sustained permanently partial physical disablement. The Petitioner (claimant) claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The insured company did not contest the application, but the insured company fought out the claim. The Tribunal having held in favour of the insurance company, the present appeal has been filed by the claimant. 3. The learned Judge, in our opinion, was wrong in holding that the insurer, that is, the owner of the offending car and its driver were not at fault and the accident occurred by negligence of the claimant himself, and as such we cannot accept the finding of the Tribunal to be correct. 4. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 7 Bimal Chandra Chowdhury that he himself saw the accident. He stated in his evidence that a man came from west and stood on middle of the road. A car came from south and overtaking another car, knocked that man, i.e. the claimant. It is further stated by this witness that the car searing No. WBG 3956 was coming at a high speed and injured the person who was crossing the road. 5. On the evidence of the aforesaid witness (P.W. 7) Miss Bose contended that 10 negligence on the part of the driver of he insured car is proved. In our opinion, the cross-examination does not at all deal with the evidence in the examination in chief regarding overtaking of another car by the offending car and that it was coming at a high speed and dashed the claimant on the road. In our opinion, the cross-examination does not at all deal with the evidence in the examination in chief regarding overtaking of another car by the offending car and that it was coming at a high speed and dashed the claimant on the road. In the circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, it must be held contrary to the finding of the Tribunal below that the offending car while overtaking another car at a high speed was driven negligently and rashly. It appears further that in a criminal case the driver of the offending car was found guilty. Taking the totality of the evidence as hereinbefore stated and considering the other evidence which proves, in our opinion that the driver of the offending car was driving the car negligently and rashly as a result of which the claimant Appellant was injured. 6. In our opinion, however, he is not entitled to anything more than his medical expenses and damage for mental pain which the learned Judge himself has assessed at Rs. 2,000/- in all. However, the claimant is not entitled to any claim for permanent physical partial disablement, inasmuch as the evidence of Dr. Arun Kr. Das (P.W. 3) who examined him on 19th March, 1971 does not at all prove the case about permanent physical partial disablement. On the other hand, the doctor who examined the claimant on the date he was admitted, was not examined about the nature of the injury incurred on the date of occurrence and how far that makes it a case for permanent partial physical disablement. 7. The appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal below is set aside. The claimant, Appellant herein will be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in all from the Insurance Company towards compensation for medical expenses and mental pain. 8. There will be no order as to costs. B.C. Chakraborti, J. 9. I agree.