JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - The claimant respondent was a passenger in the ill fated Bus No. UTA 868 belonging to the appellant Corporation which met with an accident at about 5 PM on 3-10-1977 while proceedings from Khalilabad to Basti. At the relevant time it was being driven by Lal Ji Tewari and Lal Bahadur Singh was its conductor. The Bus, according to the claimant, was being driven in rash and negligent manner as result of which it went out of control and hit against a tree at the far left and of the road resulting in serious injuries to the claimant. Against a claim for Rs. 1,25,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- have been awarded by the Tribunal. The Corporation has felt aggrieved and has come up in appeal. 2. According to Sri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Corporation, the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving nor compensation awarded was legally justified. 3. From the evidence on record the Tribunal has found that the driver was tired and over-worked when he was asked to drive the Bui from Khalilabad to Basti as he had already to drive the Bus from Khalilabad to Basti as he had already driven the Bus from Gonda to Deoria, a distance of 200 Kilometers and was made to drive the Bus onwards the cause of the accident. The Tribunal also found that the vehicle had not been thoroughly checked before it was put on the road; its hand-brake was defective as admittedly the driver himself and its speedometer was also not working so as to indicate the speed at which the Bus was running. The Tribunal also found that although the driver had seen the cyclist coming from the opposite direction from a distance of atleast 50 paces he did not care to slow down the vehicle and was also negligent in not slowing it down when he entered the abadi area. Rashness and negligent driving was also evident from the fact that the Bus stopped only after one furlong from where the vehicle ass too-red to the left. It was the own case of the Corporation that it was raining that day and the road was muddy and, therefore, when the driver tried to avoid hitting a cyclist coming from opposite direction the Bus skidded and collided against a tree. 4. It was the own case of the Corporation that it was raining that day and the road was muddy and, therefore, when the driver tried to avoid hitting a cyclist coming from opposite direction the Bus skidded and collided against a tree. 4. Apart from the claimant two other witnesses have been examined and they have all supported the case of the claimant. There is nothing in the evidence which may prevail upon me to take a different view then what the Tribunal has taken I, therefore, do not find any just reason to reverse and modify the findings of the Tribunal which are hereby confirmed. 5. As for the amount of compensation, against a claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- only Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded. 6. The petitioner is a young man whose marriage had been settled and he was returning after finalising the marriage when he met with the accident. His chances of marriage have been marred as he has developed a limp in his walk and he has been permanently disabled. He was a student of Law and on account of the accident his studies had to be enterrupted but even after passing the examination his chances for getting any good job have been grossly reduced. In this case the petitioner had to remain in the hospital for a long time and repeatedly he had to be admitted in the hospital for treatment. It is in this background that we have to consider the question of compensation which has to be awarded to the claimant. He has advance a claim for at Rs. 25,000/- for medical treatment. He has filed a number of vouchers showing the expenses incurred by him. Total amount of these bills come to Rs. 1,837.14. The Tribunal has taken a lenient view of the matter and in making a reasonable margin for untouched expenses it has awarded Rs. 5000/- to him. In view of the fact that he was treated mostly in K.G. Medical College, Lucknow where he was not required to pay anything for the treatment other than for the medicines the approach of the Tribunal in this regard appears to be just. 7. The second claim of Rs. 25,000/- has been made for pain and suffering on account of serious injuries received by the claimant. 7. The second claim of Rs. 25,000/- has been made for pain and suffering on account of serious injuries received by the claimant. It is true that the type of injuries caused to him must have caused extreme, pain, agony and suffering to him and it is not possible for any court to assess the same in terms of money. A certain amount of arbitrariness is bound to crept in while assessing the damages on this count. The Tribunal has awarded Rs 10,000/-which, in my opinion should meet the ends of justice. Although I might have been inclined to award higher amount of compensation but no objection in this case has been, filed and the order made by the Tribunal also cannot be said to be absolutely arbitrary. In these circumstances, I find the same as justified and proper. 8. The claimant has next put forward a claim for Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of his future prospects and health. On this account a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded to him. This again is a matter in which the court cannot assess the damages and certain decree of arbitrariness is bound to come in. The Tribunal has, however, considered the various aspects and thereafter it has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- which, in my opinion, is not too high, 9. Lastly for the loss caused to him on account of hospitalisation after accident, a sum of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded although Rs. 25,000/-had been claimed by him. This again appears to be just compensation and does not require any interference by this Court. Having considered the entire evidence on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the Corporation has not been able to make out a case for interference in this appeal and, therefore, the same must be dismissed. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.