S. B. Wad ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall dispose of both the appeals. F. A. O. No. 47 of 1982 is filed by Hazara Singh, advocate who was a victim of an accident which has resulted into serious permanent disability to him. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000. 00 as the compensation. The appeal is for enhancement of the said compensation to Rs. 1,50,000. 00. F. A. O. No. 75 of 1982 was filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. claiming that excessive compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. ( 2 ) HAZARA Singh, advocate had retired as Wing Commander in the Air Force in 1975 and had started his practice in 1976. On 14th December, 1979 when he was returning from the court to his residence in Safdarjang Enclave the accident took place opposite Government School, Andrews Ganj, Ring Road. According to Hazara Singh he was driving his scooter at a slow speed but a private car bearing No. DHD 8316, struck him from behind and dragged the scooter to a considerable distance. He was removed to the hospital where he remained under treatment upto 23rd February, 1980. Due to serious injuries, he had to undergo four major operations one after another. He has suffered permanent disability in breathing. He is not completely recovered as he is having serious breathing problems. He also cannot concentrate properly and cannot do normal manual work for longer periods. Apart from the general and special damages he has claimed loss of future income. He preferred a claim of Rs. 1,50,000. 00. The owner and the insurance company have given another version of the accident. According to them a black van which was ahead blew the horn and picked up speed. Thereafter, the two wheeler scooter of Hazara Singh came from the side of the van turned to the right and came in front of the car DHD 8316. They further allege that Hazara Singh could not control his two wheeler scooter and hit against the car in question. There was no damage caused to the scooter. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has relied on the evidence of the eye-witness Public Witness 7 Inderjit Kumar who had fully corroborated the version of Hazara Singh. The Tribunal found the evidence of Hazara Singh further corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Police Officer Maha Singh. There was no damage caused to the scooter. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has relied on the evidence of the eye-witness Public Witness 7 Inderjit Kumar who had fully corroborated the version of Hazara Singh. The Tribunal found the evidence of Hazara Singh further corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Police Officer Maha Singh. He had prepared the site plan which distinctly showed the skid marks up to a distance of 25 paces from the place of accident. He had arrested the car driver immediately. Tara Singh, ASI conducted the mechanical inspection of the two vehicles. On the basis of the evidence of damage caused to both the vehicles given by this witness the version of the accident as given by Hazara Singh is further confirmed. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as the two wheeler was hit from behind and there were distinct skid marks upto 25 paces. The medical evidence fully corroborated the version of Hazara Singh. The two doctors examined Hazara Singh proved that he had sustained head injuries and dislocation of the right side collar bone and abrasions and bruises all over the body. He was hospitalised from time to time and four major operations were performed on him. Hazara Singh is still under the treatment. He was present in the court and I have seen him. It is clear that he has suffered permanent disability in breathing and concentration. I have seen that he was not able to memorise simple facts. The counsel for the parties took me through the evidence. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DHD 8316. The Tribunal has found that the evidence of the driver of vehicle No. DHD 8316 was not reliable and was not corroborated by any independent evidence. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the version of the insurance company (and the owner ). It is accepted by the insurance company that the entire liability for payment of compensation was that of the insurance company under the contract of insurance. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 72,000. In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the version of the insurance company (and the owner ). It is accepted by the insurance company that the entire liability for payment of compensation was that of the insurance company under the contract of insurance. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 72,000. 00 for general and special damages as below: ( 5 ) THE counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the high side. But he has ignored the fact that Hazara Singh has suffered permanent disabilities. They are, (a) shortness of breathing; (b) pain in the entire bones; (c) stiffness in right arm due to fracture of right collar bone and stiffness in the operated region of the chest; and (d) difficulty in walking, inability to drive car or scooter, he is unable to undertake any strenuous work or cannot stand for 10 or 15 minutes continuously. He is also unable to speak at normal voice. He had to undergo four major operations. The continuing physical and mental infirmities are even now causing mental and physical suffering and pain. It has been impossible for him to do professional practice now. I reject the contention of the insurance company that compensation is on the high side. On the other hand I am inclined to agree with the counsel for Hazara Singh that the Tribunal has not computed any compensation for loss of professional income, after April, 1981. The Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of income from December, 1979 to April, 1981. At the time of accident Hazara Singh was 57 years old. According to the increased expectancy of life he would have certainly practised for another 10 years. He has produced some evidence of the fees earned by him in his two years of practice. From the figures given by him it can reasonably be assumed that he would have earned at least Rs. 10,000. 00 a year through his professional practice had he continued to do so for 10 years. Therefore, loss of future income would come to about a lakh of rupees. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 72,000. 00 for general and special damages which excludes the future losses and damages. I, therefore, hold that Rs. 1,50,000. 00 claimed as compensation by Hazara Singh was quite reasonable and just. Therefore, loss of future income would come to about a lakh of rupees. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 72,000. 00 for general and special damages which excludes the future losses and damages. I, therefore, hold that Rs. 1,50,000. 00 claimed as compensation by Hazara Singh was quite reasonable and just. I, therefore, make an award of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 in favour of Hazara Singh. He is also entitled to 9% simple interest from the date of his petition for compensation till the date of realisation. The appeal No. 47 of 1982 is, therefore, allowed. The appeal No. 75 of 1982 is dismissed. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000. 00 one set in both the appeals. ( 6 ) HAZARA Singh is entitled to interest on Rs. 1,50,000. 00 at 9% simple interest from 30. 6. 1980 to 30. 6. 1982 and on the amount of Rs. 77,400. 00 from 1st April, 1982 to the date of payment. This is because amount of Rs. 72,600. 00 was deposited in the Punjab and Sind Bank by the insurance company and Hazara Singh has received interest on the said amount from 30. 6. 1982. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 3, the insurance company shall draw up a cheque for the said amounts in the name of Hazara Singh and deposit the same in the registry of this court within 2 months from today. The Registrar shall hand over the cheques to Hazara Singh after notice.