JUDGMENT : V. Khalid, J. The Petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 632 of 1979 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum is the Appellant before us. He claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh from Respondents 1 and 2 for injuries suffered by him on account of an accident on 4.9.1977 in which he and the first Respondent were involved. According to the Appellant the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first Respondent. The 2nd Respondent is the insurance company, with whom the scooter driven by the first Respondent was insured. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Aggrieved by the reduction so made, the Appellant has filed the appeal. A cross-objection is filed by the 2nd Respondent and sustains it on the plea that the first Respondent/insured did not contest the claim and was colluding with the Appellant, wherefor the limitations imposed on the insurance company u/s 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act will not stand in the way of urging all the defences available. 2. We will now refer to the facts of the case briefly. The Appellant was, on the date of the accident, practising in the District Court, Trivandrum as an Advocate and was 32 years old. The accident took place on 4th September, 1977 at about 12.15 p.m. He was proceeding on his scooter along M.G. Road, Trivandrum, from south to north. When he reached the Public Library, Trivandrum, he overtook a stationary car. Then, the first Respondent emerged from the Public Library compound on his scooter all of a sudden, driving the scooter in a negligent manner and entered the main road without observing the traffic rules. As a result of this negligence, the two vehicles collided. The Appellant fell down unconscious and sustained injuries. The Appellant underwent extensive treatment and suffered serious disability. He claimed damages under the following heads: (i) Loss of earnings Rs. 12,000.00 (ii) Expenses for treatment Rs. 13,00000 (iii) Loss of life expectancy Rs. 10,000.00 (iv) Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000.00 (v) Deformity Rs. 5,000.00 (vi) Impairment of earning capacity Rs. 20,000.00 (vii) Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000.00 (viii) Permanent disability Rs. 20,000.00 (ix) Damages to property Rs. 2,000.00 Rs. 1,02,000.00 Amount claimed Rs. 12,000.00 (ii) Expenses for treatment Rs. 13,00000 (iii) Loss of life expectancy Rs. 10,000.00 (iv) Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000.00 (v) Deformity Rs. 5,000.00 (vi) Impairment of earning capacity Rs. 20,000.00 (vii) Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000.00 (viii) Permanent disability Rs. 20,000.00 (ix) Damages to property Rs. 2,000.00 Rs. 1,02,000.00 Amount claimed Rs. 1,00,000.00 In support of this claim the examined himself as P.W. 1, the doctor who treated him as P.W. 2 and an eye witness to the accident as P.W. 3 and also produced Exts. A1 to A5. There was no evidence on the side of the Respondents. 3. The first Respondent did not file his written statement in time. At a belated stage, he filed a written statement with a petition to accept the same. The Tribunal allowed the application with a direction that he should pay costs. He did not comply with the direction and therefore the written statement was not accepted. He was represented by an Advocate. 4. The 2nd Respondent filed a written statement denying the averments in the petition and opposing the prayer for compensation. That a valid insurance policy was available was admitted. It was further admitted that there was no violation of any of the conditions of the policy. 5. It is seen that the witnesses were cross-examined by counsel for the first and 2nd Respondents. Before considering the evidence in the case, we may dispose of the plea put forward by counsel for the insurance company that the cross-objections can be sustained in the peculiar facts of the case. Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act imposes limitations on the insurance company like this. An insurance company can urge before the Court only those defences that are permissible u/s 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the 2nd Respondent's counsel submits that the present case stands on a different footing for the reason that there was collusion between the Petitioner and the first Respondent in the Court below. Section 110-C (2A) is relied upon for the purpose of contending before us that the 2nd Respondent can question the findings of the Tribunal on merits. 6. However, the 2nd Respondent's counsel submits that the present case stands on a different footing for the reason that there was collusion between the Petitioner and the first Respondent in the Court below. Section 110-C (2A) is relied upon for the purpose of contending before us that the 2nd Respondent can question the findings of the Tribunal on merits. 6. Section 110-C(2A) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: (2A) Where in the course of any inquiry the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that-- (i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made; or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. On an examination of the records in the cases, we find that the Tribunal has not recorded in writing either that there was collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made; nor that the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. In this case both the 1st and 2nd Respondents have filed written statements. Witnesses on the side of the Petitioner before the Tribunal were cross-examined. Under these circumstances, the 2nd Respondent's counsel cannot be heard to say that the 2nd Respondent has a right to contest the claim on all grounds. We note this objection only because it was put forward before us. On the peculiar facts of this case, we do not think it necessary to enter a finding on this submission. In fact, we allowed the 2nd Respondent's counsel to contest before us, the claims made by the Petitioner on merits. 7. The question that has to be decided therefore is whether the Appellant had successfully established that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the firs Respondent. P.W. 1 has deposed in some detail as to how the accident took place. His evidence was corroborated by independent eye-witness P.W. 3. 7. The question that has to be decided therefore is whether the Appellant had successfully established that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the firs Respondent. P.W. 1 has deposed in some detail as to how the accident took place. His evidence was corroborated by independent eye-witness P.W. 3. P.W. 1 deposed that he was proceeding through the main road keeping the correct side and that the 1st Respondent came from the east and entered the main road all of a sudden violating the traffic rules. The first Respondent should have stopped the scooter and waited to see whether other vehicles were coming from the opposite direction. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first Respondent was not able to control himself and avoid the collision for the obvious reason that he was proceeding with uncontrollable speed. It was on this evidence that the Tribunal found that "I have no hesitation to find that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the first Respondent." We have examined the evidence in this case ourselves. We find that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on this evidence was justified. We therefore find that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first Respondent. 8. Now we will consider the claims under each head and examine whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the amount of damages claimed by the Appellant. The injuries sustained by the Petitioner are as follows: (1) Two lacerated wounds over the forehead, with depressed fracture. (2) Small incised wound in the infra octifal region on the side. (3) Depressed fracture on the place of frontal sinus. (4) Fracture of nasal bones. (5) Fractional process of maxilla on the right side. (6) Depressed fracture on the floor of frontal sinus on the left side. (7) Packing of nasal cavity. (8) Epistais and developed toxicity. (9) Sprain on the right hand. The Appellant was treated as an in-patient in the Medical College Hospital for 17 days. He was bed-ridden for one month and his treatment continued as an out-patient for a considerable length of time, to be exact till the end of 1980. It is in evidence that he underwent a surgery. 9. P.W. 2 is the Professor, E.N.T. Medical College, Trivandrum. He was bed-ridden for one month and his treatment continued as an out-patient for a considerable length of time, to be exact till the end of 1980. It is in evidence that he underwent a surgery. 9. P.W. 2 is the Professor, E.N.T. Medical College, Trivandrum. He treated the Appellant and assessed his disability (permanent) at 25%, for facial disfigurement. He deposed that this deformity would be a psychological factor which would seriously affect the career of the Appellant. The Petitioner suffers from repeated obstruction in his nose. There is considerable impairment on the nasal faculty. It was only four months before the accident that he got married. He says that after the accident there was disfigurement of his face. He tries to establish this by producing Exts. A3 and A4, his photos before the accident and after. We have seen the photographs ourselves. On these materials, the Tribunal accepted the case of disfigurement of face. We are satisfied that the finding of disfigurement entered by the Tribunal is justified both on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also on photos Exts. A3 and A4. P.W. 1 deposed that the accident affected his professional income considerably. It generally impaired his other faculties. According to him, he is not able to concentrate or read continuously for a long time. In his petition column (14)(vi) he has given details about the extensive reading habits that he has. He also deposed that on account of the accident he suffered great pain. It is against these materials that the claim for damages has to be considered. 10. The Tribunal granted only Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of earnings against a claim of Rs. 12,000/- made by the Appellant. This reduction was made in one sentence that there was no acceptable evidence to show the income of the Petitioner. We do not share this view with the Tribunal. P.W. I deposed that at the time of the accident, he was getting a monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-. He also deposed that after the accident his income was only Rs. 350/- or Rs. 400/-. The Tribunal has not discussed this evidence. This evidence is uncontroverted, since it was not challenged in cross-examination. We therefore see no reason to reduce the claim of damages under this head from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 9,000/-. We allow the claim under this head in full. 11. 350/- or Rs. 400/-. The Tribunal has not discussed this evidence. This evidence is uncontroverted, since it was not challenged in cross-examination. We therefore see no reason to reduce the claim of damages under this head from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 9,000/-. We allow the claim under this head in full. 11. The next head relates to expenses for treatment. The claim made was for Rs. 13,000/-. The amount awarded is only Rs. 6,000/-. The reduction was made by the Tribunal without any discussion of the evidence. We are not satisfied that this reduction can be justified without supporting reasons. As indicated above, the Appellant was under treatment from 1977 till the end of 1980. In the nature of the case it may not always be possible to adduce conclusive evidence regarding the exact amount spent for treatment. In any case, the amount of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Tribunal without discussing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 does not appear to be justifiable. We accept the evidence of P.W. 1 and hold that he is entitled to Rs. 3,000/- more towards the head 'expenses for treatment'. Thus in addition to Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the Appellant will be entitled to Rs. 3,000/- more under this head. 12. The next head is loss under life expectancy. The claim made was for Rs. 10,000/- and the amount granted was Rs. 5,000/-. We have examined the evidence on this count. We do not find any material in the evidence of P.W. 1 to persuade us to hold that the amount of damages granted by the Tribunal is insufficient. We therefore confirm the grant of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of life expectancy. 13. Regarding deformity and loss of amenities, the claims were for Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. Both these amounts were granted in full by the Tribunal. These heads of damages do not therefore call for any discussion. 14. Regarding pain and suffering, the amount claimed was Rs. 10,000/-. The amount granted under this head by the Tribunal was only Rs. 5,000/-. The reduction under this head again has been made without any proper consideration by the court below. It is in evidence that the Appellant was unconscious for one week and that he was in the hospital for 17 days for treatment. 10,000/-. The amount granted under this head by the Tribunal was only Rs. 5,000/-. The reduction under this head again has been made without any proper consideration by the court below. It is in evidence that the Appellant was unconscious for one week and that he was in the hospital for 17 days for treatment. From the deformity on his face and other injuries noted above and also in the light of the evidence given by P.W. 2 we feel justified in observing that the Appellant would have had considerable pain and suffering. The award of Rs. 5,000/- under this head does not impress us as proper. Taking into consideration the various materials available in the case, we hold that Rs. 2,500/- more under this head will, meet the ends of justice. Thus, as against Rs. 5,000/- granted by the Tribunal under this head, we grant an amount of Rs. 2,500/- more under this head. 15. The next head of damages is the loss of earning capacity. Rs. 20,000/- was claimed by the Appellant and he was granted only Rs. 10,000/-. This was done by the Tribunal again without any discussion of the evidence on the records. We have examined the evidence given by P.W. 1 closely. We find that his evidence shows that he suffered much and that he lost his normal capacity to work. This has materially affected his earning capacity. He is a young man. His age at the time of the accident was 32. From his evidence it is clear that he had high hopes in the profession. He had even declined the post of an officer in the Sales Tax Office. From Rs. 1,000/- a month, his income fell to Rs. 350/- or Rs. 450/- after the accident. There is thus sufficient evidence to hold that the claim for the entire amount of damages under the head is justified. We award Rs. 10,000/- more under this head. 16. The Tribunal has not considered the claim under the head 'personal disability'. The claim made is Rs. 20,000/-. We do not find any discussion about this in the judgment. The evidence of P.W. 1, uncontroverted as it is, satisfactorily proves that the Appellant has suffered personal disability which cannot be cured in future by treatment. This disability will live with him for life. P.W. 2 has deposed that the Appellant has suffered 25% permanent disability. 20,000/-. We do not find any discussion about this in the judgment. The evidence of P.W. 1, uncontroverted as it is, satisfactorily proves that the Appellant has suffered personal disability which cannot be cured in future by treatment. This disability will live with him for life. P.W. 2 has deposed that the Appellant has suffered 25% permanent disability. Taking into consideration all these factors, we hold that it would be proper to grant to the Appellant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the claim under this head. 17. The Tribunal has denied compensation towards damages to property without discussing the evidence supplied by P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has deposed that he had spent Rs. 1,000/- to repair his scooter. In support of this claim he produced Ext P-5 series of bills also. Damages under this head were denied without discussing the relevant evidence. Ext. P-5, series of bills, do not clearly establish the entire claim for Rs. 2,000/- made by the Appellant. In the evidence P.W. 1 limited his claim to Rs. 1,000/-. We hold we will be justified in awarding this amount to the Appellant on this account. In the result, we allow the appeal and award enhancement of compensation by Rs. 29,500/-. The cross-objection is dismissed. The Appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs both before the Tribunal and before us. There will be a decree against Respondents 1 and 2 for Rs. 79,500/- with 6% interest from the date of the petition, viz. 14.7.1979 till realisation with proportionate costs throughout.