SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 12-1-1977 passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, bangalore, in M. V. C. No. 49 of 1973 on its file awarding compensation ol Rs. 22,641. 82 P. to the injured- it is the case of the claimant that he is a retired Assistant Commissioner, aged about 61 years, at the time of the accident on 26. 9. 72 at about 5-30 P-M- he was walking on the foot-path on the "sellary road, opposite to the Corporation maternity Hospital, towards the bus stop to catch a bus, then a car bearing No. UPL 2910 owned by the 1st and second respondents driven in a rash and negligent manner by the third respondent came and dashed against him as a result of which he was knocked down and he fell unconscious. ( 2 ) HE sustained several injuries all over his body including fracture of the right leg and loss of five teeth. He was removed to St. Martha's hospital end was treated there as an inpatient; from 26. 9-1972 to 9-10-72 and he was discharged on 9-10-72 and even thereafter he attended the hospital as an outpatient for treatment. Hence he claimed Rs. 142 215. 27 as compensation from respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 are the owners of the vehicle according to the petitioner. Respondent-3 are was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, respondent-4 is the insurer. The claim was resisted by the respondents. They contended that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving. Alternatively they contended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. The Insurance Company further contended that it was not liable to pay compensation as there was transfer of vehicle by the insured. On these pleadings, the following issues were set down for trial:1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries due to the negligence of the driver of the car upl 2910? 2. What is the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner. 3. Whether the petitioner proves that he spent Rs. 2345 towards medical expenses? 4. Whether the petitioner proves that he spent Rs. 2500 towards medical treatment and towards nourishment? 5. Whether the petitioner proveal that he took treatment from Puttur bone Setter and spent Rs. 1,000 for the purpose? 6. 3. Whether the petitioner proves that he spent Rs. 2345 towards medical expenses? 4. Whether the petitioner proves that he spent Rs. 2500 towards medical treatment and towards nourishment? 5. Whether the petitioner proveal that he took treatment from Puttur bone Setter and spent Rs. 1,000 for the purpose? 6. Whether the petitioner proves that he lost his income of Rs, 95,000 on account of the injuries sustained in the accident? 7. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? addl. Issues: 6 (a ). Whether the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 40,000 towards mental shock and pain and due to permanent deformity of leg and teeth? 6 (b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,000 towards loss of wrist watch, gold chain and spectacles?during hearing ten wit nesses were examined by the petitioner, including himself. Respondent-1 was examined as R. W. 1. The Tribunal, appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car by res- pondent-3 in question. It further found that as a result of the accident the petitioner suffered fracture of his leg. Under issue No. 3 the Tribunal held that the petitioner proved that he spent rs. 969-12 ps. towards the medical expenses and that he was entitled for the same. The Tribunal further held that there was no evidence that the claimunt spent for nourishing food, but it awarded Rs. 200 towards the expenses incurred for medical treatment. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal also awarded rs. 150/- to the claimant for expenses for going to Puttur. The Tribunal awarded rs. 20,000 towards general damages. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 200 for the articles lost. Thus, the Tribunal awarded in all Rs. 22,641-82 ps. from the respondents. Aggrived by the said judgment and award, the claimant has come up in appeal before this court. The insurance Company has also filed the cross-objections. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the claimant appellant vehemently contended that, the general compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side. He also contended that the full amount claimed for the articles lost were not awarded by the Tribunal. According to him, having regard to the injuries sustained and the disability incurred, the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation. He also contended that the full amount claimed for the articles lost were not awarded by the Tribunal. According to him, having regard to the injuries sustained and the disability incurred, the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation. As against that the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents argues supporting the judgment and award of the tribunal- The Insurance Company in its cross objection has contended that the policy was no longer subsisting because the vehicle was transferred by the insured without the consent of the company. The points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in this appeal are:1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper? 2. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable for reasons advanced by it?the Tribunal has awarded special damages for actual expenses incurred there is no evidence, apart from the say jf the petitioner, that he lost any articles. Even, so, the Tribunal has given him a, token compensation of rs. 200- We have no reason to differ. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 150 for going to Puttur, which strictly may not arise. Hence we have no grounds to interfere with the special damages awarded. ( 5 ) ADVERTING now to the general damages awarded, the law is settled that general damages are to be awarded for the injury, pain and suffering and' loss of amenities and disability incurred, if any. The loss of future income should also be taken into consideration, if there is any real disability which reduced the earning capacity of the victim. Dr. Silagardo, P. W. 3, who admitted the victim into the St. Martha's hospital, has observed] the following injuries on the person of the victim on, 26-9-1972 at about 5-45 P. M. , when he examined the patient:" (1) Abrasions of the face. (2) Abrasion on the right shoulder and legs. (3) Laceration of the lower leg. (4) Friacture of right tibia and fibula- the Doctor has issued a certificate, ext. P1, regarding to same. Exts. P2 to P5 are the X-ray photos, He has deposed that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 26-9-1972 to 9-10-72. " ( 6 ) THUS, it is clear that the only major injury suffered by the claimant as a result cf the accident is the fracture of the right tibia and fibula. P1, regarding to same. Exts. P2 to P5 are the X-ray photos, He has deposed that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 26-9-1972 to 9-10-72. " ( 6 ) THUS, it is clear that the only major injury suffered by the claimant as a result cf the accident is the fracture of the right tibia and fibula. Though the claimant deposed in his evidence before the Tribunal that he has also lost 5 teeth, there is absolutely no evidence corroborating it. If he had lost 5 teeth as a result of th,e accident, it is but natural that the Doctor who examined him for the injuries at the earliest on 26. 9. 72 should have observed it. Hence, we are unable to agree with the claimant and the Tribunal that the claimant lost five teeth as a result of the accident. We are satisfied on, the evidence on record that the major injury that he suffered was fracture of the right tibia and fibula. Normally, fracture of tibia and fibula would be set right, if the patient cooperates with the doctor and takes proper treatment, even, though it is true that it takes longer time for cure in the case of elderly people like the claimant. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the evidence of the Doctor would reveal that the claimant did not co-operate with the doctor and did not even listen to the advice of the Doctor. P. W. 7, Dr. G. P. Modayil, orthopaedic surgeon, st. Martha's Hospital, has deposed thus:"he was under my treatment as an inpatient, St. Martha's Hospital, bangalore, from 26-9-1972 to 9-10-1972 after his discharge from the hospital he came to me once on 20-12-1972. I advised him for an X-ray of right tibia and fibula. On looking at the x-ray, 1 found the fracture had not united and the patient was advised to retain the plaster for six more weaks. The patient refused. "it is settled law that there is a duty cast on the victim to mitigate the damages. For example, if the petitioner refused to undergo operation, it may be said that he has violated his duty to mitigate. (Vide: Stweele v. Robert george and Co. (194? AC 497,1941 All E. B. 447. ). Similarly, damages were reduced for similar grounds in a case where a man suffering from anxiety neurosis refused to take the hospital treatment. For example, if the petitioner refused to undergo operation, it may be said that he has violated his duty to mitigate. (Vide: Stweele v. Robert george and Co. (194? AC 497,1941 All E. B. 447. ). Similarly, damages were reduced for similar grounds in a case where a man suffering from anxiety neurosis refused to take the hospital treatment. (Vide: Marerofft v. Scruttons Ltd (1954 1 Lloyds Rep. 396. ). Thus, where the victim through his obstinacy does not co-operate with the doctor or refuses to undergo operation, it can safely be concluded that the victim did not try to mitigate the damages and in such cases danvages have to be reduced on that count, taking into consideration the cure if he were to co-operate. The claimant cannot unload upon the respondent the consequences of his own stupidity or irrational scruples. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, as is deposed by dr. Modayil P. W. 7, the claimant refused to have plaster cast for six weeks more. Not merely that he refused to undergo operation also as advised by the doctor. This is what the doctor has stated:"due to old age and site of the fracture it takes a little long time for uniting. In some cases the, bone may not unite and in that case it may require bone grafting. But in this case I canot say what would have been the end result as I was not given the opportunity to continue the patient to re-handle. I might have said that it might require bone grafting eventually, but I had advised him to retain the plaster for six more weeks". In the cross-examination, he has further stated:"after the lapse of six weeks we would have been in a condition to adv. se for an operation if necessary. If the operation is done in 99% cases he would have completely recovered. If the bones had set completely probably there would not have been any defect in walking, if the bones had been set completely the person might not be experiencing any pain on standing for long period. " ( 9 ) THUS, the evidence of the Doctor makes it very clear that the little defect left over is entirely due to obstinacy and non-co-operation of the claimant and not as the natural result of the injury. " ( 9 ) THUS, the evidence of the Doctor makes it very clear that the little defect left over is entirely due to obstinacy and non-co-operation of the claimant and not as the natural result of the injury. In fact, the claimant has examined himself as P. W. 10, He has stated in, his evidence that instead of continuing treatment in Hospital, he thought it proper to visit Puttur and started taking treatment under Puttur doctor. Puttur doctor has not been examined before the Tribunal. Whether he is a doctor, whether he is qualified to treat tiie patient or whether he was a quack is not on record. At any rate, according to the evidence of P. W. 7, who is an orthopaedic surgeon, the patient should have, been cured of all the defects and he should have been able to walk without pain and stand if he cooperated with the Doctor. Now, fier efore, if any little defects are left over, we are constrained to observe that it is entirely due to the non-cooperation of the victim with the qualified surgeon and his failure in trying to mitigate the damages. Hence, such defects cannot be considered for purposes of awarding compensation. Considering the awards made in com-' durable cesses in the case of fracture of the bone leg we find Rupees 20,000 awarded are not merely just and proper but actuallv on the liberal side. In the case of Srinivasa v- Parasiva murthi (3) this Court has held that general compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was proper in the case of a boy of 6 years who suffered fracture of the leg with permanent deformity of the leg. In the Case of Hindustan General Inssociety ltd. , v. Satish Chandra Paul (4), the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5000/- as general damages in the case of compound fracture of Tibia and fibula, the High Court confirmed the same. Of course, the appeal was not by the claimant. In the case of MPSRTC v. Sudhakar (5), there was a compound fracture of right tibia and fibula. Injured was an educated lady belonging to a well-to-do family. Her gait was permanently affected. General damages were awarded at Rs. 30,000 by the tribunal, it was reduced to Rs. 20,000 by the High Court. Having regard to the awards made in these comparable cases, we find that Rs. Injured was an educated lady belonging to a well-to-do family. Her gait was permanently affected. General damages were awarded at Rs. 30,000 by the tribunal, it was reduced to Rs. 20,000 by the High Court. Having regard to the awards made in these comparable cases, we find that Rs. 20,000 awarded as general damages cannot be described as on the lower side. We have no compelling grounds to interfere with the award. ( 10 ) ADVERTING to the cross-objections, though the Insurance Company took several contentions, they have, remained, as contentions. The Insurance Company has not exa,mined anybody to prove its case. The burden being on the company we are constrained to hold that there is no merit in the cross-objections. ( 11 ) IN the result, both the appeal and the cross-objections fail as devoid of merits. On the peculiar facts of this case, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .