SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, viz. , motor cycle bearing No. MEX. 2021, and is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th April, 1977 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, in MC (MVC) Nos. 76 of 1978 and 143 of 1976 on its file. The present appellants were respondents 1 and 2 in MC (MVC) No. 76 of 1976. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the claimant that on 15-4-1976 at about 11-15 p. m. , he was going on the motor cycle bearing mex. 2204 on, the road near Kankanadi Hospital having come from Fr. Muller's hospital; that he was going op the left side of the road; that P. W. 3 Adolph D' Souza was sitting on the pillion; that at that lime, the first respondent, Yogaraj, came riding his motor cycle bearing MEX. 2021 from the opposite side with fast speed; that he came off side the road and coming on the wrong side, hit the motor cycle on which the claimant was going on the right broad side of the road, as a result of which both the motor cycles fell down and the petitioner sustained fracture of the right femur and fracture of right patella. He was first admitted to the Vijaya Clinic where he stayed from 154-1976 to 18-4-1976. Thereafter, he got himself admitted to fr, Muller's hospital where he was treated from 18-4-1976 to 29-5-1976. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running a tailoring shop having 12 tailors under him and he was earning more than Rs. 2,000 per month. As a result of the accident he could not attend to his work for six months and besides he is now left with disability in the right leg. So he claims damages of Rs. 75,000 from the respondents. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT-1 is Yogaraj, the driver owner of the other motor cycle. Respondent 2 is the insurer of the other motor cycle. The respondents resisted the claim. According to them, the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2021 by Yogaraj. It was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2204 by the petitioner anthony Fernandes. Alternatively, they cor tended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. The respondents resisted the claim. According to them, the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2021 by Yogaraj. It was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2204 by the petitioner anthony Fernandes. Alternatively, they cor tended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings: - (1) Does the petitioner prove that the injurties sustained by him were due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2021 ? (2) Was respondent No. 1 guilty of negligence? (3) Is the petitioner entitled to get damages; if yes, what amount and from which of the respondents? (4) Is the respondent No. 2 not liable for the reasons mentioned by it? (5) What order? ( 5 ) DURING the hearing, the petitioner examined P. Ws 1 to 3. P. W 1 is Dr. J. N. A. D'souza, an Orthopaedic surgeon in Fr. Muller's hospital, who examined and treated the petitioner. P. W. 2 is the petitioner Anthony fernandes. P. W. 3 is Adolph J. D. Souza. He was the pillion rider. He has spoken to the manner of accident and the injury sustained by the petitioner. As against that, the respondents have examined three witnesses. R. W. 1 is J. Mylaraiah, a clerk in the r. T. O's Office. R. W. 2 is Dr. Kodandaram who speaks about the injuries sustained by respondent-1, r. W. 3 is Yogaraj a. respondent-1. He gives his own version about the accident. In addition to the oral evidence, Ext- P-1 to P-17 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exsb-1 to R-16, on behalf of the respondents. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle mex. 2021 by respondent-1 and in that view, it awarded compensation of rs. 34,220-55 P. to the petitioner from the respondents. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the respondents have come up in appeal before this Court. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in recording its finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No. MEX. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the respondents have come up in appeal before this Court. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in recording its finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No. MEX. 2021 by the original respondent-1 who is appellant-1 before this Court. Alternatively, he submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent argued supporting the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. ( 7 ) THE points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:- 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident on question was the result of rash and negligen driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2021 by the first respondent Yogaraj? 2. Whether the quantum of comtensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was going on his motor cycle on that fateful night on the road near kankanadi circle. It is further not in dispute that respondent-1 was coming from the opposite direction driving the motor cycle MEA. 2021. It is the case of the claimant (P. W. 2) and the pillion rider (P. W 3) that the claimant was riding his motor cycle on the proper side of the road with moderate speed. It is further their case that original respondent-1 Yogaraj, who was coming from the opposite direction, was coming riding his motor cycle in a zig-zag manner and with rash speed it is their case that Yogaraj who came from the opposite side of the road, hit the motor cycle of the petitioner on its right front and guard and crash guard as a result of which, the petitioner fell down having sustained injuries. ( 9 ) IT is well established that in a case of collision of two vehicles which happens in a split second, we should appreciate the oral evidence in the light of the circumstantial evidence on record. Ext. P. 9 would clearly establish that the damages to the motor cycle of the claimant were mostly on its right side whereas, damages to the motor cycle of the first respondent (appellant-1) were to the front side. Ext. P. 9 would clearly establish that the damages to the motor cycle of the claimant were mostly on its right side whereas, damages to the motor cycle of the first respondent (appellant-1) were to the front side. That clearly establishes that it was the first respondent who came and hit against the motor cycle of the petitioner claimant on his right side This is corroborated by the scene of occurrence panchanama, Ex p-7. Thus these two further corroborate the evidence of the claimant P. W. 2 corroborated by the evidence of the pillion rider P. W. 3. The oral evidence of these witnesses and the circumstantial evidence, namely the damages caused to the two motor cycles are further corroborated by the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is the right leg of the claimant that was fractured, both right femur and right patella. It further establishes that the motor cvcle of Respondent-1 came and hit the right side of the claimant's motor cycle That is the evidence, as stated above, of the claimant and his witness. Thus the evidence of the claimant and his witness is fully corroborated by the circumstantial evidence which are unimpeachable whereas the evidence of respondent-1 examined as R. W. 3 is contradicted by the unimpeachable circumstantial evidence brought on record. That being so we are persuaded to agree with the tribunal, without more, that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by respondent-1 Yogaraj. ( 10 ) THAT leads us to the question of quantum of compensation The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 375-35 and rs 2,776-12 as also Rs. 69-08 under the heads medicine and hospital charges. It has awarded Rs. 1,000 under the head nourishing food. The tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000 under the head loss of income, till the trial. In addition, it awarded Rs. 25,000 towards general damages for shock, pain, suffering and injury which resulted in disability. Thus, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 34220-55 P. which is challenged before us as exorbitant. ( 11 ) SO far as the special damages are concerned, we have no ground to interfere because they are borne out by vouchers and receipts They are in conformity with the probabilities of the case, having regard to the injuries sustained and the period during which the claimant was treated. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, challenged Rs. ( 11 ) SO far as the special damages are concerned, we have no ground to interfere because they are borne out by vouchers and receipts They are in conformity with the probabilities of the case, having regard to the injuries sustained and the period during which the claimant was treated. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, challenged Rs. 5,000 awarded towards the loss of income till the date of trial it is in evidence that the Tribunal has rightly believed that the claimant was running a tailoring firm and that he engaged 12 tailors under him having regard to it, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of income for six months during which period, even according to the doctor P W. 2, the claimant was not able to carry on his tailoring work, is quite modest and reasonable and we have no ground to interfere with the award so made Then remains the general damages of Rs. 25,000 awarded by the Tribunal. ( 12 ) DAMAGES have to be awarded normally for the pain and suffering as also agony that the claimant underwent and that he is likely to suffer in future, for loss of amenities and the disability incurred which may result in loss of future income. It is for all these that rs 25,000 are awarded by the Tribunal. ( 13 ) IT is settled principle of law that award made in a particular case should be consistent with the awards made in comparable cases over some length of time. In the case of srinivasa v. Parasiva Murthy 1976 ACJ 45 = (1976) 1 Kar LJ 7. , a Division Bench of this Court, enhanced in the case of an injury to the leg of a boy aged six years leaving permane it deformity in the leg general damages from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 10,000. In that case, the Tribunal had no occasion to take into consideration the disability in the earning capacity and there it was only a fracture of the leg. In the instant case, there is are two injuries, viz. , fracture of right femur and fracture of right patella and disability left over is much more. c In the case of United India, Fire and General Insurance Co. , Ltd. , v. sayar Kanwar 1976 ACJ 426, the High Court of rejastan awarded Rs. 15,000 for tracture of the knee-cap. , fracture of right femur and fracture of right patella and disability left over is much more. c In the case of United India, Fire and General Insurance Co. , Ltd. , v. sayar Kanwar 1976 ACJ 426, the High Court of rejastan awarded Rs. 15,000 for tracture of the knee-cap. In the case of ved Prakash Sethi v. M/s Musafir transport Co. , Ltd. , Mansa 1974 ACJ 367. the high Court of Punjab and Haryana awarded Rs. 40,000 as damages for fracture of both legs and permanent disability of the injurned aged 31 years in the MPSTRC v. Bhopal v. Sudhakar 1967 ACJ 90 the High Court of Madhya pradesh, awarded Rs. 20,000 to a lady whose gait was affected because of fracture in right tibia and febula. Having regard to these cases and taking into consideration the disability incurred by the claimant, we are of the considered view that Rs. 25,000 awarded as general damages cannot be considered as excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant no doubt submitted that there is no appreciable disability incurred by the claimant. But the doctor has something else to say. The doctor was examined as p. W. 1. He has stated thus: -"he could not walk without crutches on the day when he was discharged. He had to use crutches for 3 to 4 months. He would not be able to work on the sewing machine with his right leg because he will get pain in the right knee joint. Looking to the type of the fracture of the patella, I am of the opinion that he would get pain in it whenever he moves his right leg. For some time more, he would not be able to walk as before. He cannot bend his right leg fully. He is bqund to develop arthritis as age advances. He can bend his right leg to an extent of 90 degrees. He cannot ride the motor cycle for a long distance. "the petitioner is limping slightly. Both the plates put to the petitioner are still there. Some people are allergic to the plates. If the plates are rejected by the body, then he will have to undergo another operation. He can bend his right leg to an extent of 90 degrees. He cannot ride the motor cycle for a long distance. "the petitioner is limping slightly. Both the plates put to the petitioner are still there. Some people are allergic to the plates. If the plates are rejected by the body, then he will have to undergo another operation. "thus it becomes clear by the evidence of the doctor that there is permanent disability left in the right knee joint; he can bend his right leg to an extent of 90 degrees and he is likely to get arthritis as age advances. He is likely to get pain in the knee joint. These are certainly permanent disabilities left over and in the absence of any clinching evidence, the general damages awarded including a lumpsum towards loss of future income by the Tribunal at Rs. 25,000 is quite modest and reasonable. It is just and proper on the facts of the case. We have no reason to interfere with it. ( 14 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 100/ -. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons discussed above, the cross-objections stand dismissed. --- *** --- .