This appeal is by the insurer, who has felt aggrieved at the award given by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Gauhati by which a sum of Rs, 52,000 has been made payable by the insurer as compensation .to respondent No. 1 who was involved in a motor accident on 5,1.78. The accident had taken place at about 6 PM when the claimant along with his wife was proceeding towards Gauhati from Matigaon on a scooter. Near the Pandu Maligaon road crossing, the scooter faltered against some pebbles or pot-hole and the wife of the claimant fell down from the scooter. Subsequently the claimant also lost his balance and fell down from the scooter. Nearby people came and attempted to rescue the claimant, when truck. No. ASZ 4478 came in a very high speed from Gauhati side and hit the scooter and then the claimant. As a result of the accident, the claimant suffered the following injuries 1. The left side arm and both bones of the fore-arm and the right side both bones of the fore-arm and. the ribs 4th, 5th and 6th on the right side are, fractured 2, Lacerated injury on the arm and right axilla. 3. Lacerated injury on the arm and right cubital portion. 4. Abrasion over the forehead and also abrasions all over, the body. 2. A petition was filed on 3.7.78 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- compensation under various heads. The claimant in support of his case examined 6 witnesses. Nobody was examined on behalf of the insurer. In so far as the insured, and the driver are concerned they did not contest the case before the learned Tribunal. It appears from the materials on record that the learned tribunal being satisfied that the injuries were as a result pf the negligent driving of the truck, awarded a sum of Rs. 52,000 as compensation. 3. Shri Choudhury has first submitted that the accident was due to the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. We have, however, not felt inclined to accept this submission because if the scooter had skipped because of some pebbles or pot-hole it cannot be said that the claimant was negligent. If the truck would have been driven with caution and care the injuries on the person of the claimant would not have been caused. We have, however, not felt inclined to accept this submission because if the scooter had skipped because of some pebbles or pot-hole it cannot be said that the claimant was negligent. If the truck would have been driven with caution and care the injuries on the person of the claimant would not have been caused. We are, therefore, of the view that the injuries caused on the person of the claimant were the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question. 4. This takes us to the question of quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the sum of Rs 52.000/- was awarded on the following counts :- Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- Mental agony Rs 10,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- Repair of the scooter Rs. 2,000/- Loss of income Rs. 25.000/- 5. Shri Choudhury has first urged, and rightly that Rs. 10,000 having been awarded for pain and suffering a further amount of Rs, 10,000 could not have been granted for mental agony. We accept this submission of Shri Choudhury as the pain suffered also took care of mental agony undergone. In so far as the medical treatment is concerned we have not felt inclined to disturb the same. As to the repair of the scooter, the claimant stated that he had to pay a sum of Rs. 1600. We would therefore reduce the award given on account of repair from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1600. The next major head of compensation granted is relatable to loss of income. From the evidence of the claimant we find that prior to the date of accident, he was earning a monthly income of Rs. 1000. The income earned by him after the acci­dent was, however, Rs. 700/800 per months. The loss was there­fore of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per month and it also cannot be said that this loss was permanent in nature. We are of the view that the compensation awarded on this count-the sum being Rs. 25.000/- was excessive and we would reduce it to Rs. 12,500. The total compensation payable therefore comes to Rs. 29,100 which we square upto Rs. 30,000. It is stated by Shri Choudhury that the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- pursuant to the order, of this Court on 30. 25.000/- was excessive and we would reduce it to Rs. 12,500. The total compensation payable therefore comes to Rs. 29,100 which we square upto Rs. 30,000. It is stated by Shri Choudhury that the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- pursuant to the order, of this Court on 30. 3 84 in Misc. Case No. 27/84. As such, nothing remains to be paid on this count. The insurer has, however, to pay interest @ 12% as per several decisions of the Supreme Court from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment of Rs. 30.000. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.