JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 22.4.1985 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,000/- to the injured-appellant and has allowed 10 per cent interest from 2.2.1983 on this amount to the date of recovery. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that on 7.8.1982, the claimant-appellant Kalyan Chand was going on his scooter No. RNB 5984 from High Court premises towards State Bank, Kutchery Branch, Jodhpur. A three-wheeler bearing No. RRN 4175, which was driven by non-applicant No. 1 Amritlal, who also happens to be the owner of this vehicle, came from behind and struck against the scooter. The claimant-appellant fell down and received certain injuries. He became unconscious. He was shifted to the hospital by Mr. N.M. Lodha, Advocate. He regained consciousness on the way and he had to remain in the hospital for 3 days, i.e., upto 10.8.1982 and, thereafter, he was asked to have complete bed rest at his residence. It is alleged that this accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo by non-applicant No. 1 Amritlal. It is further alleged that on account of this accident, the claimant-appellant could not attend to his normal duties for about 7 months and he had to suffer mental and physical agony. At the relevant time, the petitioner-appellant was working as insurance agent and was also doing some cloth dyeing and printing work and was earning Rs. 750/- per month. The claimant-appellant has claimed Rs. 25,000/-on account of mental shock and agony, Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of income, Rs. 4,000/- on account of loss of income having become unable to attend his jobs and Rs. 2,000/- on account of medical attendant's fees, medicines and consumption of special diet and Rs. 25,000/- on account of permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tempo by Amritlal. It, however, disallowed the claim of the claimant-appellant for permanent disability but allowed him Rs. 8,000/- as general damages, Rs. 1,000/- on account of medical and other expenses and Rs. 3,000/- on account of loss of income. Thus, in all Rs. 12,000/-have been awarded to the claimant-appellant as compensation on account of this accident. It, however, disallowed the claim of the claimant-appellant for permanent disability but allowed him Rs. 8,000/- as general damages, Rs. 1,000/- on account of medical and other expenses and Rs. 3,000/- on account of loss of income. Thus, in all Rs. 12,000/-have been awarded to the claimant-appellant as compensation on account of this accident. The claimant-appellant has been allowed interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application till the recovery of the amount of compensation. It is against this award of the learned Tribunal that the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal before this court. 3. I have heard Mr. J.M. Bhandari, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant and Mr. R.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 4. It was contended by Mr. Bhandari, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, that nothing has been awarded to the claimant for permanent disability. In this case, actually the claimant has failed to prove permanent disability. He has failed to produce any medical certificate to show that the injuries that have been caused to the claimant on account of this accident have resulted in any permanent disability or permanent disfiguration of the body. I, therefore, hold that in the absence of any such proof, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in disallowing the claim of the claimant for grant of damages on account of permanent disability. 5. So far as medical and other expenses are concerned, it is true that medical bills amounting to Rs. 269.87 alone have been produced but the injured-claimant had to remain under treatment for a period of 6-7 months. He could not attend to his normal duties. He had to take services of a doctor for his treatment as also of a compounder for his dressings and other purposes. He was also administered special diet. The claimant-appellant has stated in his statement before the learned Tribunal that he spent Rs. 2,000/-on this account. No cross-examination has been made with him so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, and hence, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed Rs. 2,000/- to the claimant-appellant on this account, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. The claimant-appellant has stated in his statement that he was earning Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- per month. 2,000/- to the claimant-appellant on this account, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. The claimant-appellant has stated in his statement that he was earning Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- per month. In the claim petition, he has averred that he was earning Rs. 750/- per month. The accident had occurred on 7.8.1982 and the claimant had resumed his duties on 15.7.1983. Thus, he has remained out of his employment for a period of 11 months. In another part of his examination-in-chief, he has also stated that for about 6-7 months, he could not earn anything whatsoever, which clearly shows that he started attending to his duties after the expiry of about 7 months but could not work in full swing. Thus, if we take his monthly earning as Rs. 750/-, his 7 months' earning comes to Rs. 5,250/-. In his statement, the claimant has stated that thereafter, he could not earn in a normal way upto 15.7.1983. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that on account of loss of income, the claimant-appellant should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. As regards the general damages, the claimant-appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. He is a person who got married only a month back and met with an accident and on account of this accident, he has remained in hospital for about 3 days and had to remain confined to bed for a number of months. It resulted in depriving him of his marital as also the other pleasures of his life for such a long time and it must certainly have caused lot of mental shock and agony to him. 7. Mr. J.M. Bhandari, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant, has in this respect placed reliance on a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Swatantra Kumar Lamba v. Sheila Didi, 1988 ACJ 74 (P&H) , wherein the injured-claimant was awarded Rs. 5,600/- for medical expenses and transportation, Rs. 4,800/- for special diet, Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 96,000/- for loss of earning capacity, Rs. 40,000/- for pain, suffering and loss of pleasures of life, Rs. 5,900/-for attendant and gratuitous services and Rs. 1,500/- for damage to scooter. The facts of each case differ from the other. That was a case of an Advocate aged 30 years, who was earning substantially. 20,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 96,000/- for loss of earning capacity, Rs. 40,000/- for pain, suffering and loss of pleasures of life, Rs. 5,900/-for attendant and gratuitous services and Rs. 1,500/- for damage to scooter. The facts of each case differ from the other. That was a case of an Advocate aged 30 years, who was earning substantially. However, keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that the learned Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 15,000/- as general damages to him on account of pain, shock, mental agony and loss of marital and other pleasures of life for quite a long time. 8. So far as interest is concerned, the claimant-appellant is entitled to 12 per cent interest on the amount of compensation as per the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1985 ACJ 645 (SC) . 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the claimant-appellant is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000/- as general damages for mental shock and agony, loss of pleasures of life and pain etc., Rs. 2,000/- on account of special diet, and medical and transportation expenses and Rs. 6,000/- on account of loss of income. He is further entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12 per cent on this amount till its recovery. 10. In the result, this appeal partially succeeds and the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 23,000/- and the petitioner will get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on this amount from the date of the application till its recovery less already paid to him. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. 11. Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower court forthwith.Appeal partly allowed. *******