JUDGMENT R.K. Vijayvargiya, J. 1. This orders shall also disposed of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 243 1980, M/s. Narbada Bus Service v. Shyamsunder and Ors.. These appeals are directed against the award dated 22.4.1980 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas, in Claim Case No. 18 of 1978 (old No. 9/77 and 28/76). 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals briefly stated are as follows: On 8.3.1976 at about 8 a.m., when passenger bus No. M.P.D. 3333 was coming from Khategaon to Indore it turned turtle in front of Dak Bungalow. The passengers traveling in the bus sustained injuries in the accident. The Appellant Shyamsunder (in Misc. Appeal No. 212 of 1980) was also a passenger in the bus and sustained injuries in the accident. The Appellant claimed Rs.50,000/-as compensation from the non-Applicants for the injuries caused to him in the accident. It is not in dispute that the said passenger bus was owned by M/s. Narbada Bus Service and at the time of the accident was being driven by the non-Applicant No. 2 Mohammad Ali and insured with the non-Applicant No. 3 the New India Assurance Company Limited, Bhopal. According to the claimant the accident was caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus in driving it, and therefore, the non-Applicants are responsible to pay compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The non-Applicants contested the claim. According to the Respondents the accident was not caused on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the bus. According to them a she-buffalo came in front of the bus and the bus turned turtle on account of the sudden failure of brakes while attempting to save the she-buffalo. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of negligence of the driver in driving the bus and the Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,312/- as compensation to the Appellant with interest at 6% p.a. from 19.8.1976 till payment. The Tribunal directed that liability of the insurer will be limited to payment of Rs.5,000/- with interest thereon. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal the claimant has preferred appeal, which is registered as Misc. Appeal No. 212 of 1980. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,312/- as compensation to the Appellant with interest at 6% p.a. from 19.8.1976 till payment. The Tribunal directed that liability of the insurer will be limited to payment of Rs.5,000/- with interest thereon. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal the claimant has preferred appeal, which is registered as Misc. Appeal No. 212 of 1980. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal the owner of the bus M/s. Nabadar Bus Service, also preferred appeal which is registered as Misc. Appeal No. 243 of 1980. As both these appeals arise out of a common award they are being disposed of by this order. 3. The learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced suitably. The learned Counsel for the owners of the bus contended that the award by the Tribunal is excessive and the Tribunal committed an error in limiting the liability of the insurer to Rs.5,000/-. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have comes to the conclusion that the appeal preferred by the owner of the bus deserves to be dismissed and the appeal preferred by the claimant deserves to be partly allowed. 5. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held and in my opinion rightly, that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver in driving the bus. The learned Counsel for the owner of the bus was unable to point out any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. 6. As regard the quantum of compensation the Tribunal held that the claimant was earning Rs.400/- per month from different sources. The Applicant was employed as a petrol pump attendant, with A.W. 9 Chhatarsingh. The claimant was also taking some contract work and had also engaged himself in agriculture. In my opinion the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the monthly income of the Appellant from different sources was Rs.400/-. A.W. 1 Dr. R.K. Moorthi deposed that he treated the claimant at Gupta Nursing Home, Indore. The claimant sustained fracture, dislocation of the left shoulder joint. The claimant was operated on 9.3.1976 and discharged on 25.3.1976 from the Nursing Home. Dr. Moorthi certified the percentage of disability to be 20. A.W. 1 Dr. R.K. Moorthi deposed that he treated the claimant at Gupta Nursing Home, Indore. The claimant sustained fracture, dislocation of the left shoulder joint. The claimant was operated on 9.3.1976 and discharged on 25.3.1976 from the Nursing Home. Dr. Moorthi certified the percentage of disability to be 20. Considering the nature of the injury caused to the claimant in the accident, in my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any arror in awarding Rs.5,000/- as general damages to the claimant, and Rs.1,000/- as damages for pain and suffering caused to the claimant. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,312/- as special damages, for expenses incurred by the claimant in medical treatment. The learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the Appellant remained under treatment for about four months and the Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any compensation for loss of earnings to the claimant for the aforesaid period. He also contended that the Appellant was removed in a taxi to Indore and be paid Rs.203 as taxi charges. The Tribunal committed an error in not allowing this amount to the claimant. He further contended that the Appellant claimed Rs.600/- as special diet charges and Tribunal committed an error in allowing Rs.300/- under that head. He also contended that the claimant stayed at Indore for three months and the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.600/- as rent which was required to be paid by the claimant at Indore. 7. From the testimony of the claimant and other evidence it is proved that the claimant remained under treatment for about 4 months and, therefore, he suffered loss of earning during that period. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.500/- as loss of income to the claimant. The Tribunal held the income of the claimant as Rs.400/- per month. In the circumstances the claimant in entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,100/- on account of loss of earning for the period he remained under treatment. The Tribunal has also not given any reason for not awarding taxi charges paid by the claimant for coming in an injured condition from Bigwar to Indore. The claimant is, therefore, entitled to get this amount of Rs.203/- from the Respondent. 8. In my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding Rs.300/-as special diet charges in place of Rs.600/- claimed by the Appellant. The claimant is, therefore, entitled to get this amount of Rs.203/- from the Respondent. 8. In my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding Rs.300/-as special diet charges in place of Rs.600/- claimed by the Appellant. The claimant has also not proved that he had paid any amount as rent during the period he was required to stay at Indore and, therefore, this claim is not sustainable on the evidence on record. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to been enhanced by Rs.1,100/- and 203/- total Rs.1,303. The result is that the Appellant is entitled to receive Rs.10,615 as compensation. The appeal preferred by the Appellant deserves to be allowed to this extent. 9. There is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the owner of the bus that the Tribunal committed an error in limiting the liability of the insurance company to Rs.5,000/-. The policy is on record. In the policy in endorsement No. 13 it is specifically stated that liability of the insurance company is limited to the sum of Rs.5,000/- in respect of any one person, who was carried in the vehicle. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that this policy was not produced before the Tribunal and that it is not clear as to how it has come on record. This contention has no force. This policy is in the record of the Tribunal and in the margin of the policy, there is an endorsement admitted and signed by the Court for the owner. The owner who had the original policy with him did not file the same before the Tribunal. If it was the case of the owner that the policy did not contain the endorsement No. 13 he should have filed the original policy before the Tribunal. 10. In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error in limiting the liability of the insurance company to Rs.5,000/- and there is no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal in that respect. 11. As a result of the discussion aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 243 of 1980 preferred by the owner of the bus is dismissed. Misc. Appeal No. 212 of 1980 filed by the claimant is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified. 11. As a result of the discussion aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 243 of 1980 preferred by the owner of the bus is dismissed. Misc. Appeal No. 212 of 1980 filed by the claimant is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified. It is directed that the claimant shall get Rs.10,615/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Appellant shall also get interest on the aforesaid amount at 6% p.a. from the date of application till payment. The liability of the insurance company is limited to the payment of Rs.5,000/-and interest thereon and the costs awarded by the Tribunal. The parties shall bear their own costs of these appeals. Appeal allowed