JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the owner of a jeep bearing registration No. OSC 5336. 2. On 2-6-1984, a jeep of State of Orissa, was being driven on the National High Way No. 5, when the claimant was coming in a motor cycle as a pillion rider from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar. There was collision resulting injuries of fractures of left leg of the claimant. He has to undergo treatment and even on the date of taking evidence in the claim case before the Tribunal the Doctor who was treating the claimant certified that he had not been, fully crued. In that background, the Tribunal has assessed the just compensation to be Rs. 20,000/- as claimed. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle. 3. The accident is not in dispute. Mr. D.P. Sahu, the learned Stan ding Counsel tried to impress on me that the driver of the jeep had no fault since the vehicle was coming from the embankment road and all the blame was to be put on the driver of the motor cycle against whom no compensation has been claimed. In nutshell, the appellant claimed no negligence of its driver and in the minimum contributory negligence to reduce the compensation. 4. The driver of the jeep has not been examined in this case. The Block Development Officer who was the occupant of the vehicle has been examined who stated that the vehicle was to come to Cuttack and on account of the fact that a Bus was coming from Cuttack side to proceed to Bhubaneswar the jeep was on its right side to come to the left after the bus passed at that time the motor cycle came in speed and dashed against the left bumper of the jeep. The driver of the vehicle if examined could have given a clear picture but he has been withheld without any explanation for his non-examination. So an adverse inference can be drawn and it can safely be concluded that on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep, the accident took place. Mr. The driver of the vehicle if examined could have given a clear picture but he has been withheld without any explanation for his non-examination. So an adverse inference can be drawn and it can safely be concluded that on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep, the accident took place. Mr. Sahu submitted that equally adverse inference for non-examination of the driver of the motor cycle is to be drawn once there is an accident and negligence is attributed to the driver. If the Block Development Officer could not have been examined, this would have been a valid consideration where contributory negligence is claimed. If the accident would have been denied, the question might have been different. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, on the evidence on record and for non-examination of the driver of the jeep I confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the jeep was being driven negligently, as a result of which, the injury was sustained by the claimant. 5. Mr. Sahu has strenuously urged that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 14,000/- for the injuries, Rs. 3,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs. 3,000/- for expenses of treatment and cost of attendants. Mr. Sahu is justified to comment that the Tribunal has not been able to correctly calculate the nature of compensation to be awarded. Therefore, I have determined the just compensation. 6. Now there is no dispute that on account of the fracture of the left leg claimant was treated as an indoor patient on three occasions. The injury was continuing even at the time of hearing. Periodical attendance for the purpose of treatment itself would indicate that the petitioner was continuing in such condition for about a year. If this injury is continuing for a year, there cannot be any doubt for the petitioner having medical expenses for which no exact amount is possible to be assessed in the nature of the case. After the injury, petitioner must have been deprived of his normal life and would be having mental pain for one year which is likely to continue till he would be normal. In the absence of clear evidence, reasonable guess work is permissible. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am satisfied that the just compensation in the present case would be Rs. 13,000/-. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. In the absence of clear evidence, reasonable guess work is permissible. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am satisfied that the just compensation in the present case would be Rs. 13,000/-. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand). In case the compensation as awarded is paid within one month, the interest of 6% as granted by the Tribunal from the date of application till payment shall be sustained. Incase the same is not paid within one month from today the rate of interest will be increased to 12-1/2% from the date of application till the payment. There shall be no order as to costs.