JUDGMENT : V.P. Bhatnagar, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Project Officer, Indo-German Agriculture Project and is directed against the judgment dated September 2,1977, of a learned single Judge, whereby he reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, from Rs. 34,900/- to Rs. 23,900/-. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved from the award of the compensation amounting to Rs. 23,900/-. The claimant has filed cross-objections on the ground that the reduction of the amount is not in order. 2. The claimant in this case is Mr. Manohar Lal who was practising as a lawyer at Mandi in the year 1973. He was coming from Sundernagar to Mandi in his car No. HIM 333 on January 27, 1973 when there was a head-on collision with jeep No. HPM 32 belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh but attached with Indo-German Agriculture Project, Mandi. This accident took place at a curve situate at a distance of three kilometres from Mandi towards Sundernagar. Mr. Kishan Chand was driving the jeep and one officer of the Project was travelling in it. The car HIM 333 was being driven by the claimant himself and Mr. Rup Singh, the then Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, Mr. D.K. Abrol, Advocate and Mr. Hira Lal, Advocate, were sitting in that car. It was snowing at that time and the claimant's case is that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road which caused the accident. It resulted in the front portion of the car being badly damaged. The streering wheel of the car hit the chest of Mr. Manohar Lal who suffered injuries on that account. 3. The defence put forward by the Appellants was that the claim had been preferred beyond the period of limitation and further that unnecessary parties have been impleaded. On merits, it was averred that the driver of the jeep had parked it on the left side of the road and he himself had gone for urinating. It was then that the car being driven by Mr. Manohar Lal dashed into the stationary jeep resulting into injuries to its occupant. 4. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as price of the car, Rs. It was then that the car being driven by Mr. Manohar Lal dashed into the stationary jeep resulting into injuries to its occupant. 4. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as price of the car, Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental injuries caused to the claimant and Rs. 6,900/- towards the loss of professional income. Thus, a sum of Rs. 34,900/- was awarded to Mr. Manohar Lal together with interest at the rate of Rs. 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. As stated above, this amount was reduced to a sum of Rs. 23,900/- by the learned single Judge. However, no alteration was made in the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 5. The first point which falls for determination is whether the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge have returned concurrent findings in the matter. They have upheld the claimant's version pertaining to the cause of the accident. We have no reason to differ. 6. Mr. Manohar Lal has stepped into the witness box as PW 7 in support of his case. He is fully corroborated by the testimony of PW 1 Mr. Rup Singh, who was then working as Senior Subordinate Judge at Mandi and PW 3 Mr. D.K. Abrol, Advocate, Sundernagar. Both of them were travelling in car HIM 333 at the time of accident. Mr. Rup Singh has stated in categorical terms that the jeep came all of a sudden from the opposite direction on the wrong side and dashed against the car of Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate, in a head-on collision. There is not a single good reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. At the same time, the version put forward on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh is falsified by their own witnesses. It is not disputed that two German nationals, one of whom was the Leader of the German Delegation working in the Project, happened to reach the place of accident within minutes of its occurrence. According to Mr. Rup Singh, both of them admitted that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the jeep driver. It is not disputed that two German nationals, one of whom was the Leader of the German Delegation working in the Project, happened to reach the place of accident within minutes of its occurrence. According to Mr. Rup Singh, both of them admitted that the accident had taken place due to the fault of the jeep driver. They held out an assurance that the car would be repaired in the Project Workshop and that the matter may not be taken to police. RW 3 Dalip Singh, who was then working as Motor Mechanic in the Project, was entrusted with the job of taking the car to workshop. Now, this witness has stated in the examination-in-chief that the car and the jeep involved in the accident were standing in the middle of the road and that it was snowing at that time. Manifestly, therefore, this part of his testimony based on his actual observation does not fit in with the version that the jeep had been parked on the left side of the road when the driver went away for urinating. It is also admitted that the car had been taken away to the Project Workshop for repairs. The very fact that the Leader of the German Delegation as well as RW 1 Mr. A.R. Chauhan, who was then working as Project Officer of the Project and was accompanying the German nationals, were instrumental in the taking away of the car to the Project Workshop for conducting repairs leads to the inference that they did accept the blame for the accident and desired to set the things right. We do not find much weight in the explanation given by the State that this was agreed to for the sake of mere courtesy. This is specially so in view of the direct evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant about the talks which took place immediately after the accident. 7. As a result, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal and confirmed by the learned single Judge about the cause of accident is unexceptionable and calls for no interference whatsoever. 8. It has beer, strenuously contended by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, who argued this case on behalf of the Advocate General, that this claim deserves to be thrown out as barred by limitation. The accident took place on January 27, 1973 and the petition was presented on August 17, 1973. 8. It has beer, strenuously contended by Mr. M.L. Chauhan, who argued this case on behalf of the Advocate General, that this claim deserves to be thrown out as barred by limitation. The accident took place on January 27, 1973 and the petition was presented on August 17, 1973. The period of limitation being six months, the petition was admittedly filed after twenty days of the expiry of the period of limitation. Mr. Manohar Lal's case has been that he was misled by the assurance held out to him by the Project authorities, including the Deputy Commissioner. Mandi that his car would be repaired at the Project Workshop at Bhangrotu due to which reason he did not institute the claim within limitation. According to him it was in the middle of August, 1973, that the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, asked him that he should pay the cost of the spare parts needed for the repairs and that no labour charges would be taken from him. It was then that he immediately proceeded to file the petition before the Tribunal. That Mr. Manohar Lal was so misled has been amply brought out by the testimony of PW 4 Mr. Mohar Singh, who was working as Magistrate First Class at Mandi in the year 1973. According to this witness, even Mr. A.R. Chauhan. Project officer, had assured Mr. Manohar Lal that the matter of car repairs was being pursued. Mr. A.R. Chauhan, who has stepped into the witness box as RW 1, has also deposed that the German Experts were negotiating through government with the insurance company about the car repair matter. It means that they had accepted the responsibility on their own shoulders. Mr. Manohar Lal was truly taken by surprise when the Project authorities went back on their assurance and wanted him to foot the cost of spare parts. The above factual position, in our opinion, does constitute sufficient ground for the condonation of the delay involved in the presentation of this petition. 9. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Appellants, has cited Union of India v. Manzoor Ahmad 1982 ACJ 241 (J &K), in support of his contention that delay of each day is required to be explained to constitute sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay. 9. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Appellants, has cited Union of India v. Manzoor Ahmad 1982 ACJ 241 (J &K), in support of his contention that delay of each day is required to be explained to constitute sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay. This proposition of law cannot be disputed but, for the reasons discussed in detail above, we find no reason to conclude differently from the learned single Judge that the delay in the present case stands fully explained. This contention pressed on behalf of the Appellants is, therefore, without any force and is rejected. 10. This leaves us with the last point requiring determination of the quantum of damages to be awarded to Mr. Manohar Lal. Here also, we cannot but maintain the quantum arrived at by the learned single Judge. The car was purchased by Mr. Manohar Lal in the year 1970 for Rs. 15,000/-. He spent some amount on purchase of accessories though no precise account of the said purchases has been brought on the record. PW 5 Mr. Kailash Chand has stated that the car when sold to Mr. Manohar Lal had done 3700 miles only. The market value of a new car in 1973 was Rs. 21,739/- whereas it had shot up to Rs. 34,345/- without insurance in March, 1975 when his statement was recorded. Mr. Manohar Lal, who has argued his own case before us, has pleaded that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- allowed to him by the learned single Judge is totally inadequate inasmuch as the price of the car had considerably gone up. On the other hand, Mr. M.L. Chauhan has drawn our attention to the testimony of PW 2 Mr. Satish Saxena who had prepared an estimate of the damage to the car by the accident. His estimate is to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- and the argument is that no compensation towards the price of the car can be awarded exceeding this sum of Rs. 8,000/-. 11. The difficulty in restricting the compensation on account of price of the car to Rs. 8,000/- is that the car was not repaired at all and has been a total loss to Mr. Manohar Lal due to the acts of commission and omission done by none else than the Project authorities themselves. 8,000/-. 11. The difficulty in restricting the compensation on account of price of the car to Rs. 8,000/- is that the car was not repaired at all and has been a total loss to Mr. Manohar Lal due to the acts of commission and omission done by none else than the Project authorities themselves. They took the car to their workshop and permitted it to lie there unrepaired for about six months after which the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who was the Chairman of the Project, informed Mr. Manohar Lal to meet the costs of spare parts. The car till today remains in the custody of the Appellants and it is evident that it became a total loss as far as Mr. Manohar Lal is concerned and that too for no fault of his. The learned single Judge was, therefore, completely justified in offsetting the amount of depreciation of the car against the increase in its market value during the period of two-three years for which Mr. Manohar Lal plied it. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded on this account is, therefore, correct and is maintained. 12. As regards the compensation awarded to Mr. Manohar Lal on account of physical and mental injuries (Rs. 2,000/-) and loss of professional income (Rs. 6,900/-), there appear no valid grounds for any interference. Mr. Manohar Lal was a leading Advocate of Mandi. According to the testimony of Mr. Rup Singh who, as stated above, was working as Senior Subordinate Judge at Mandi, the steering-wheel struck against Mr. Manohar Lal's chest as a result of which he made sounds indicative of extreme pains. Mr. Rup Singh then started massaging his chest and it was after sometime that Mr. Manohar Lal felt better. According to this witness, Mr. Manohar Lal had remained confined to bed and during the night had terrible pain in his chest. He had a number of cases in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge but did not attend the Court for sometime. Mr. Narain Dass, retired District Medical Officer, attended upon Mr. Manohar Lal at his residence but his testimony could not be recorded presumably because he died two months before the date fixed for recording evidence. PW 6 Mr. Hem Singh was his compounder and he has supported the claimant's case about the treatment he had undergone due to the accident. No doubt, Mr. Manohar Lal at his residence but his testimony could not be recorded presumably because he died two months before the date fixed for recording evidence. PW 6 Mr. Hem Singh was his compounder and he has supported the claimant's case about the treatment he had undergone due to the accident. No doubt, Mr. Manohar Lal has not furnished documentary evidence pertaining to his medical treatment. The absence of his being X-rayed also shows that he did not sustain any grievous injury of the nature of fracture of any bone. Nevertheless, the total amount of Rs. 8,900/- awarded to him by the learned single Judge on account of mental shock, physical injuries and loss of professional income cannot be regarded as excessive at all. Some guess work does creep in while estimating damages on these accounts. The amount awarded, however, has to be reasonable. We are convinced that the amount thus awarded is just and reasonable. 13. As a result, the appeal as well as the cross-objections are dismissed. Both the parties are left to bear their own costs. However, Mr. Manohar Lal will be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation from the date of the institution of the petition till its payment as postulated in Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act and held payable in Iqbal Singh v. Sohan Singh 1984 ACJ 12 (P &H).