JUDGMENT 1. - Milap Chand Kothari, the appellant-claimant, filed an application under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for damages and compensation of Rs. 56,500/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. 2. It was alleged that on 27th July, 1976, at about 11. 30 a. m , he was going from the side of Government Press building on Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur on his Suvega moped-RRL 9539. At that time, near Dhuleshwar Bagh, he had taken a turn from the correct side and gave a signal of hand for the same but, since he was in the middle of turn. a motor cycle No. RSM 3637 came from behind and dashed him by coming from wrong side and by driving motor cycle rashly and negligently. The Suvega moped was also crushed by the motor cycle and the appellant was dragged and, received injuries on his leg and back etc. On account of this he was shocked and, lost his memory partially for ever. He remained confined to bed for one and half months and he could not after his business of jewellery resulting in loss of Rs. 3,000/- The claimant claimed Rs. 10,000/- for mental and physical sufferings and agony. The claimant claimed Rs. 2000/- as expenses insured for hire of auto rikshaw for coming and going to hospital for a period of 4 months because Suvega was damaged and, Rs. 40000/- for loss of memory permanently. The claim was contested. The issues were framed and the evidence was taken. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that that undoubtedly the motor cycle driver, namely Ram Prakash, who was also owner of the vehicle and was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently but, at the same time held responsible and liable the claimant for contributory negligence as he did not care to look behind and take care and cautions which a person placed in his position should have taken while taking the turn. 3. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the claim but found that the claimant` is entitled to get Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental and physical suffering and, Rs. 490/-as damages for repairs of Suvega moped but, reduced this amount by fifty percent and held that he would get only Rs. 495/-as damages and Rs. 200/- as costs. 4. 3. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the claim but found that the claimant` is entitled to get Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental and physical suffering and, Rs. 490/-as damages for repairs of Suvega moped but, reduced this amount by fifty percent and held that he would get only Rs. 495/-as damages and Rs. 200/- as costs. 4. Shri B.L. Pagaria, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently criticised the judgment of the Tribuhal and, submitted that it is perverse on record.Firstly, Shri Pagaria pointed out that the claimant. However in this statement, has stated that he did not look behind to observe and did not give a signal by hand to stop by taking turn. Shri Pagaria read the statement of Milap Chand Kothari and witnesses. 5. I find from the statement of the claimant as well as Uttam Das Khanna, his witness that Milap Chand Kothari took all precautions and care on the turn. He also gave a signal by hand so that the person coming from behind may know that he is turning. It has come further in evidence on record from Uttam Das that the motor cycle driver came rashly and did not give any horn or signal that he would be crossing. The motor cycle driver was driving it with much high fast speed. During this incident, Milap Chand Kothari remained unconscious for 15 minutes, according to this witness U.D. Khanna. 6. It is very pertinent and significant that Ram Prakash in his statement has admitted that before the Magistrate in criminal case. He has admitted there that he was driving the vehicle motor cycle with rashness and negligence, due to which this accident took place. 7. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the contention of Shri Pagaria that the statement of Milap Chand Kothari has been misread by the Tribunal and the contributory negligence fast end on him, is based on no evidence. 8. Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation, Shri Pagaria has invited my attention to the following decisions which are relevant and,therefore it would be necessary to take notice of them before deciding the case on merits in this respect. 1. Swaraj Motors Pvt. v. T.R. Raman Pillai(1968 ACJ 127-DB Kerala) Head note F. 2. Chadwick v. British Trans. Commission (1968 ACJ 175-Queen's Bench England para 9) 3. 1. Swaraj Motors Pvt. v. T.R. Raman Pillai(1968 ACJ 127-DB Kerala) Head note F. 2. Chadwick v. British Trans. Commission (1968 ACJ 175-Queen's Bench England para 9) 3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shanti Devi Dutt ( 1975 ACJ 508 -para 7) 4. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Dr. Balkrishan (1976 ACJ 288 Head Note I) 5. Elloway v. Bommars (1969 ACJ 303-Supreme Court of Columbia Para 4) 6. Devendra Raj Mehta v. Kanwar Sen (1980 (UP) WLN P-65- para-6) 9. Before I proceed to consider the various decisions of the High Courts, I may mention that Shri W. W. Chitately in his treatise on Motor Vehicles Act- AIR Commentaries at page 666 while discussing the factors to be considered in making an award has very precisely pointed out that the claim of compensation can be under the following heads; (1) Shock; (2) Physical pain; (3) Mental distress; (4) Medical expenses; (5) Diet charges including special diets; (6) Loss of property, if any, as a result of the accident; (7) Damages on account of specific injury such as fractures distortion of pelvis, etc; (8) Loss of income during illness; (9) Loss due to disablment in future income; (10) Travelling expenses if any; (11) Loss due to diminution of expectation of life or life span: (12) Loss of prospective pension; (13) Anticipated loss of professional income; (14) Loss suffered on account of purchase of new vehicle; (15) Loss due to disfiguration and deformities; (16) Expenses of an attendant in case of permanent disability." Shri Chitaley has deduced that the general principle is that the benefit which the dependents would have continued to enjoy is most important factor in the matter of fatal accidents but, in cases of injuries where the injured survives, the considerations are in respect of the loss suffered due to the injuries and the shock, which the claimant gets in addition to the physical mental pain and stress etc. are also to be considered. 10. Shri Chitaley has opined that the Award of compensation to living victims have to be much higher than the death cases because compensation goes to the victim both for personal and economic loss. According to Gujarat High Court decision in (7) (ILR 1972 GUJ 574-DB normally, the amount for pain and sufferings to the injured must be Rs. 1000/- and an additional amount should be for personal handicaps or discomfort. 11. According to Gujarat High Court decision in (7) (ILR 1972 GUJ 574-DB normally, the amount for pain and sufferings to the injured must be Rs. 1000/- and an additional amount should be for personal handicaps or discomfort. 11. The amount of course varies according to gravity and seriousness of the injuries in each case. The Kerala High Court in Swaraj Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. T.R. Raman Pillai (supra) have noticed that after proving the damages, it is not necessary that the expenditure should be supported by the bills 'Ind vouchers in every case and the Court can assess fair amount. 12. Shri Pagaria invited may attention to the decision of Queens' Bench Division England in Chadwick v. British Transport Commission (supra) wherein Waller, J. held that an action will lie for an injury by shock sustained through the medium of the eye or ear, without direct contact, Para 9 contains the discussion. It reads as under: "I next consider the case of Hay (or Bourhill) v. Young (1942 2 All E. R. 396) , the well known case of the Edinburgh fish wife. Except in the speech of Lord Russel of Kilowen there is no disapproval of the majority of the court of Appeal in Hambrook v. Stokes Brother (1924) ALL. E. R. Rep 110) Lord Macmillan said thus: "It is no longer necessary to consider whether the infliction of what is called mental shock may constitute an actionable wrong. The crude view that the law should take cognizance only of physical injury resulting from actual impact has been discarded, and it is now well recognised that action will lie for injury by shock sustained through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact. The distinction between mental shock and bodily injury was never a scientific one, for mental shock is presumably in all cases the result of, or of least accompanied by, some physical disturbance in the sufferer's system, and a mental shock may have consequences more serious than those, resulting from physical impact. In the case of mental shock, however, there arc elements of greater subtlety than in the case of an ordinary physical injury and these elements may give rise to debate as to the precise scope or legal liability." 13. Shri N. J. Modi, in his treatise-Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twentieth Edition) (Mr. In the case of mental shock, however, there arc elements of greater subtlety than in the case of an ordinary physical injury and these elements may give rise to debate as to the precise scope or legal liability." 13. Shri N. J. Modi, in his treatise-Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twentieth Edition) (Mr. N. M. Tripathi, Bombay) at page 244, has observed thus: "Shock usually appears immediately after receiving the injuries, but it may supervene after some time, if the individual at the time of receiving injuries was in a State of great excitement and mental preoccupation. Shock may be produced from exhaustion resulting from several injuries combined, though each one of them separately may be very slight." In the present case, no compensation has been allowed for shock as such though the compensation has been allowed for mental and physical agony. The Tribunal has held that there is no evidence that there was any permanent deprivation of memory in the form of the medical evidence to corroborate the claimant. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the statement of the claimant which is unrebutted on this point, I would, in view of the above principles of law, hold that the claimant should get an amount of Rs. 5000/- for the injuries caused due to shock which has left partial problems of memory as stated by the claimant in his statement. It has come in evidence on record that he remained unconscious for about 15 minutes and, in such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement that some problem has been created in the memory though there had been no permanent problem of memory. 14. The amount for physical and mental.agony and suffering has been allowed by the Tribunal at Rs. 500/- only. The fact that the claimant had undergone treatment for one and half months, should have been noticed by the Tribunal. I would allow Rs. 2000/- for the same instead of Rs. 500/-. 15. In addition to the physical and mental agony, the claimant had also claimed that on account of remaining in bed and under treatment, he was disabled for considerable time and could not do his business for which he had assessed his income at Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal has not given any good reasons for rejecting it, nor there is any evidence on the contrary. An amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The Tribunal has not given any good reasons for rejecting it, nor there is any evidence on the contrary. An amount of Rs. 2000/- is therefore, allowed for the same. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed as expenses for medical treatment. The Tribunal has disallowed this claim on the ground that the vouchers had not been produced. In view of the nature of the injuries, it would be fair to allow atleast Rs. 500/- for the same even though the detailed vouchers and bills had not been produced. 16. The result of the above discussion is that this appeal is partly allowed and the modified Award would be as under: 1. Damages due to the shock caused Rs. 5,000/- 2. For mental and physical agony Rs. 2,000/- 3. For loss of business Rs. 2,000/- 4. For medicines and treatment Rs. 500/- 5. For repairs to the Suvega moped Rs. 490/- Rs. 9,990/ The claimant would also get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till the date of realisation. All the respondents would be liable to pay above amount of Rs. 9,990/- with interest, as ordered above. 17. The impugned Award is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******