JUDGMENT : D.H. Shukla, J. Admit. Service of notice waived by Mr. Akhil Kureshi, for respondent No. 1. 2. The appellants are the original opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 640 of 1984, which was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot District, Rajkot. 3. Respondent No. 1 was the original applicant. 4. Respondent No. 1 claimed total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the accidental injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 10-6-1984 at about 4.00 p.m. near Amin's Vanda within the city of Rajkot, when he was knocked down from over his motor cycle bearing No. GAP 4554 by the Metador Van bearing No. GAP 8871, being driven by the appellant No. 1, and which was owned by the appellant No. 2 (original opponent No. 2). 5. The case of the original claimant was that the accident had taken place on 10-6-1984 at about 4-00 p m. near Amin's Vanda within the city of Rajkot. According to him, he was going to the Mayor's House at Rajkot on his motor cycle No. GAP 4554 and was on the correct side of the road. When he reached near the locality known as Amin's Vanda, the Metador Van No. GAP 8871 came there from the Panchavati Society side. The Mendor was being driven by the appellant No. 1, Tribhovandas Bhagvandas, in a rash and negligent manner and at an excessive speed, with the result that the Metador dashed with the motor cycle, as a result of which the respondent No. 1 was thrown off the motor cycle and he sustained various injuries, including the fracture. 6. It was the case of the respondent No. 1 orig. claimant that at the relevant time he was 48 years of age and he used to earn a gross salary of Rs. 3275/- per month while working as Assistant Commissioner in Rajkot Municipal Corporation. He suffered permanent partial disability to the tune of about 30 per cent. He has given the details of his claim which totalled upto Rs. 1,00,000/- as stated above. 7. The present appellants challenged the claim on several grounds. 8. The learned tribunal framed issues at Exh. 14. He decided that the accident did occur as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant No. 1. He has given the details of his claim which totalled upto Rs. 1,00,000/- as stated above. 7. The present appellants challenged the claim on several grounds. 8. The learned tribunal framed issues at Exh. 14. He decided that the accident did occur as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant No. 1. He also decided that the respondent No. 1 did not in any way contribute to the accident, and for the reasons stated by him in his judgment, he awarded a total compensation of Rs. 83,560/-. 9. The tribunal has discussed the evidence of respondent No. 1 as well as that of witness Gunvantrai Dhaneshwar Joshi (Exh. 59), Mr. Joshi is an eye-witness and according to him, the dash to the motor cycle was given by the Metador Van. He has denied the allegation that the motor cycle dashed with the Metador Van at the rear. The appellant No. 1 has also examined himself. According to him, he had lowered down the speed of his vehicle and had sounded the horn. He has further stated that ¾th of the vehicle had already passed and the motor cycle had dashed with the right side rear wheel of his vehicle. Besides discussing the evidence of the rival sides, the tribunal has also considered the F.I.R. filed by the respondent No. 1 (Exh. 38). The Tribunal filed by the respondent No. 1 (Exh. 38). The Tribunal has relied upon the F.I.R. inasmuch as it was the earliest version of the accident. The Tribunal has also relied upon the Panchnatna of the scene of occurrence at Exh. 39. The Panchnama snowed that the damage was on the left side of the motor cycle. In the view of the Tribunal, this damage would go to show very clearly that the dash was given to the motor cycle on its left-hand side by the front part of the Metador and that therefore it became abundantly clear that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant No. 1 who was driving the Metador and that there was no negligence or even contributory negligence on the part of respondent No. 1. In view of the discussion of the issue by the Tribunal, it appears that the issue about negligence has been correctly decided. So. he has correctly decided the issue regarding contributory negligence. In view of the discussion of the issue by the Tribunal, it appears that the issue about negligence has been correctly decided. So. he has correctly decided the issue regarding contributory negligence. 10. Next comes the question of the quantum of compensation which can legitimately be awarded to the respondent No. 1, which is covered by issue No. 4. We have perused the reasoning of the Tribunal in awarding Rs. 83,550/-. We have also examined the injuries deposed to by Mr. Dholakia, which injuries were suffered by respondent No. 1. There were about 9 injuries, but all of them do not appear to b-3 so serious, and as a matter of fact, only serious injuries were the two fractures, one was of scapular and another was of clavicle. Respondent No. 1 has indeed deposed about his sufferings. However, considering the injuries, it appears to us that the tribunal has erred in awarding a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on the head of pain, shock and suffering. We must also bear in mind that the period during which he was required to be take treatment was not a prolonged period, as Dr. Dholakia stated that in his opinion the claimant must have taken physiotherapy for a period of three to four months During his cross-examination, he also accepted the allegation that the injuries at Sr. Nos. 5 and 9 may be due to advanced age. He has stated that in advanced age, the movement of the joints become restricted and painful. He has further stated that the permanent disability may not have corresponding decrease in the actual earning capacity. He took leave only of 28 days. In our opinion, therefore, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be an adequate compensation on the head of pain, shock and suffering, instead of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 11. The tribunal has also considered the question of compensation from the view of future economic loss based on permanent partial disability of 20 per cent. He has, for the reasons recorded in his judgment, came to the conclusion that the loss resulting from permanent disability would, therefore, come to Rs. 57,600/-. In our view, the tribunal has erred in reaching this figure also. In our opinion, a sum of Rs. 54,000/- would be adequate and proper. 12. So far as the special damages are concerned, we find the award quite justifiable. 13. 57,600/-. In our view, the tribunal has erred in reaching this figure also. In our opinion, a sum of Rs. 54,000/- would be adequate and proper. 12. So far as the special damages are concerned, we find the award quite justifiable. 13. The total compensation, as now awarded by us, comes to Rs. 69,960/, which we round up to Rs. 70,000/-. 14. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 33,560/, the appellant-original opponents shall pay to the respondent No. 1 original claimant a sum of Rs. 70,000/- with 6 per cent interest thereon from the date of the application till realisation and proportionate costs. The liability of the appellants, namely, original opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, shall be joint and several. The appellant No. 3, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., is directed to deposit the aforesaid award amount with accrued interest and costs within 10 weeks hereof. After the amount is deposited, the tribunal shall make the investment as stated below. 15. Out of the amount of compensation payable to the respondent No. 1, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- together with interest accrued and costs shall be paid in cash to respondent No 1 after deducting the deficit court-fees, if any. The remaining amount of Rs. 65,000/- shall be invested in the name of respondent No. 1 in National Savings Certificate (VII Series) for a period of six years. The interest that may accrue on it will be with draw able by the respondent No. 1. 16. The respondent No. 2, Sterigan Fabric Private Limited, was impleaded in the original application as opponent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 resisted the petition and contended that they did not have the knowledge of the accident because they were the owners of the vehicle on the date of the accident and therefore they were not in any way liable to pay compensation. This contention has been accepted by the tribunal and the award is passed only against the original opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 4, who are the present appellants. Mr. A.H. Mehta, for the appellants, does not challenge this finding, so far as the non-liability of respondent No. 2 (original opponent No. 3) is concerned, and he prays orally that the respondent No. 2 may be deleted from the appeal. 1, 2 and 4, who are the present appellants. Mr. A.H. Mehta, for the appellants, does not challenge this finding, so far as the non-liability of respondent No. 2 (original opponent No. 3) is concerned, and he prays orally that the respondent No. 2 may be deleted from the appeal. The oral request is granted. Respondent No. 2 is deleted, and Mr. Mehta shall carry out the amendment in the appeal memo accordingly. Hence, the dismissal of the petition against respondent No. 2, original opponent No. 3, is confirmed. Award as modified above may be drawn accordingly. Appeal partly allowed. Order accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.