JUDGMENT K.C. Bhargava, J. - F.A.F.O. No. 51 of 1985 and F.A.F.O. No. 52 of 1985 arise out of a common judgment dated 30111984 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao, in Claim Petition No. 38 of 3981 & Claim Petition No. 40 of 1984 whereby awards for Rs. 2,45,000 and Rs. 41,500 have been made respectively in these two claim petitions. F.A.F.O. No. 53 of 1985 arises out of the judgment dated 30111984 delivered by the same Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 39 of 1981 decreeing a claim of Rs. 53,500. 2. All these three appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of two judgments delivered in the same accident. In all these appeals the claimants have filed crossobjections. 3. The facts of the case stated, in brief, are that the claimants were travelling in Bus No. UTP 6693 which was going from Lucknow to Kanpur. This Bus collided with another Bus of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation No. UTT7130 near village Ghara at 130 P. M. on 10111980. According to the appellants both the Buses were being driven rashly and negligently by the Drivers on account of which this accident took place. The appellants received a number of injuries and were treated at Kanpur. Shri A. A. Sidiiqui claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,96,134.85 P. He was awarded a sum of Rs. 53,500 as compensation. Smt. Usha Pandey claimed a sum of Rs. 5,90000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by her. Km. Anuradha Pandey and Km. Sulakshana Pandey had jointly claimed a sum of Rs. 1,82,000. Smt. Usha Pandey has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,45,000 as compensation and Km. Anuradha Pandey & Km. Sulakshana Pandey have been awards a sum of Rs. 41,500 as compensation. All this compensation has been decreed against the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. 4. Aggrieved against these awards of the learned Tribunal the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has filed these three appeals against the two judgments. As aforesaid the respondents in all the three appeals have also filed crossobjections. 5. Learned counsel for theappellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents have been heard. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of crossobjections. 7. As aforesaid the respondents in all the three appeals have also filed crossobjections. 5. Learned counsel for theappellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents have been heard. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of crossobjections. 7. According to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Section 110D of the Motor Vehicle; Act does not provide for filing crossobjection hence respondents are not entitled to file any crossobjection. He has further argued that Order XLI Rule 22 CPC will also not apply to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as the Motor Vehicles Act is a Special Act and it has not made any provision for filing of crossobjections. According to the learned counsel for the appellant if the intention of the Legislature was that crossobjections could have been filed under the provisions of Section 11CD of the Motor Vehicles Act then a specific provision would have been made under the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the crossobjections can be filed in appeals which are filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as Order XLI Rule 22 CPC will apply in such cases. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contention has relied upon the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Janki Devi and others, 1982 Accidents Claim Journal, 429. A question arose in that case as to whether crossobjection is maintainable before the High Court at the instance of the respondents to an appeal filed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act. This case came up before the Full Bench of this Court on a reference being made by a Bench. The question which was referred to the Full Bench was as under: Whether a crossobjection as contemplated by Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable before the High Court at the instance of the respondents to an appeal filed under Section 11CD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The question which was referred to the Full Bench was as under: Whether a crossobjection as contemplated by Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable before the High Court at the instance of the respondents to an appeal filed under Section 11CD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. After referring to the two decisions of this Court and various other decisions of other Courts, the Full Bench of three Judges came to the following conclusion: In the light of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the view taken by this Court in Virendra Singh's ease and followed in other decisions of this Court is not warranted by law and a crossobjection as contemplated by Order 41, rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable before the High Court at the instance of a respondent to an appeal filed under Section 11CD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 9, Thus in view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court it is now settled view of this Court that under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC a crossobjection is maintainable before the High Court under Section 11CD of the Motor Vehicles Act at the instance of the respondent to an appeal filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to various other authorities of different High Courts which are as under: 1. Zahid Husain v. Khairati Lal Jain and others, AIR 1954, Allahabad 419 (DB). 2. Mt. Daroupati Devi and another v. S.K. Dutt and another, AIR 1957 Allahabad, 48. 3. Panna Lal v. State of Bombay and others AIR 1963 Supreme Court, 1516. 4. Smt Gurdey Kaur v. Rash Beharl Das, AIR 1978 Calcutta, 547. 5. M. Suhba Raju v. Syed Mahboob and others 1984 ACJ, 133, It is not necessary for us to refer to these authorities individually. Thus, it is held that a crossobjection under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC can be filed in an appeal filed under the provisions of Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. In all these appeals the appellant has not disputed the faction of accident or the negligence of the Bus Driver on account of which this accident has taken place. 11. In all these appeals the appellant has not disputed the faction of accident or the negligence of the Bus Driver on account of which this accident has taken place. It is also not disputed that the petitioners of the claim petitions sustained injuries in the accident. It has merely challenged the amount of the award which has been granted by the learned Tribunal to the various claimants. The claimants, on the other hand, by filing crossobjections have also challenged the amount of compensation which has been awarded to them and have alleged that the learned Tribunal has inadequately awarded the compensation. 12. Now we have to see as to whether the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal to the various claimants errs on the higher side or on the lower side, or is just and fair. 13. Now we propose to take up the case of the claimants individually. Shri A. A. Siddiqui 14. Shri A.A. Siddqui has, in all, claimed a sum of Rs. 1,96,134.85 P. and he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 53,500 as compensation. The amount of compensation claimed and awarded by the learned Tribunal are given as under: Nature of claim Amount claimed Amount awarded 1. Loss of salary) Rs. 34,134.85 Rs. 7000 2. Loss of earned) leave) 3. Medical expenses Rs. 5000 Rs. 3000 4. Nursing charges Rs. 5000 Rs. 2000 5. Salary of attendant Rs. 2000 Rs. 1500 6. Mental agony. Rs. 50,000 Rs. 5000 7. General damages. Rs. 1,00,000 Rs. 35,000 Rs. 1,96,134.85 Rs. 53,000 15. Claimant Mr. Siddiqui at the time of the accident was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Post and Telegraph Department and was getting a pay of Rs. 140C/ per month at that time. Against the claim of Rs. 34,134.85 the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7000 only. The statement of A. A. Siddiqui (P.W. 1) goes to show that he suffered a loss in his pay. The loss of pay has been proved by the statement of G.S. Shukla (P.W. 5). He is Head Clerk in Post and Telegraph Department. He has given details from which date to which date A.A. Siddiqui remained on leave. According to his statement A.A. Siddiqui has suffered a loss of Rs. 34,134.85. The loss of pay has been proved by the statement of G.S. Shukla (P.W. 5). He is Head Clerk in Post and Telegraph Department. He has given details from which date to which date A.A. Siddiqui remained on leave. According to his statement A.A. Siddiqui has suffered a loss of Rs. 34,134.85. According to his statement the probation period of A.A. Siddiqui was also extended on account of this accident which has affected his promotion also. A. A. Siddiqui has also filed a chart giving details of the loss suffered by him on account of this accident. It is not necessary to specify the details which have been given in the chart because the same tallies with the dates given in the statement of G.S. Shukla (P.W. 5). There is no evidence in rebuttal from the side of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to contradict the version put forward by A.A. Sidiiqui. Therefore, the statement of G.S. Shukla (P.W. 5) is to be believed & it is held that the loss suffered by A. A. Siddiqui in his pay on account of this accident was to the extent of Rs. 34,134.85 paise. Learned counsel for the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has argued that the applicant is not entitled to any pay as he was already on half pay when the accident occurred. This argument does not hold good. According to the statement of G.S. Shukla (P. W.5) the accident occurred at the time when A.A. Siddiqui was coming back to join his duties. This statement of this witness goes to show that if this accident had not taken place A. A. Siddiqui would have joined the duty and would not have suffered any loss in his pay. Therefore, it cannot be said that A.A. Siddiqui is not entitled to get loss of salary as he was already availing leave on half pay at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal at page 44 of the paper book has considered this aspect of the case and it is mentioned that G.S. Shukla (P.W. 5) has proved that Shri Siddiqui remained absent from duty and suffered loss of salary amounting to Rs. 34,134.85. In para 6 of the judgment the learned Tribunal has mentioned that as Siddiqui was on half average pay from before the accident, therefore, he is not entitled to get full pay. 34,134.85. In para 6 of the judgment the learned Tribunal has mentioned that as Siddiqui was on half average pay from before the accident, therefore, he is not entitled to get full pay. This reasoning of the learned Tribunal cannot be accepted for the reason mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal that A.A. Siddiqui is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 7000 only cannot be upheld and the amount of compensation awarded to A.A. Siddiqui under this head is enhanced to Rs. 34,134.85 P. 16. As regards medical expenses and nursing charges which have been paid by the claimant Shri Siddiqui, he has been awarded a sum of Rs. 5000 only against the claim of Rs. 10,000. Learned Tribunal has discussed this point in para 7 of the judgment. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation on higher side and it should not have granted the amount to the extent of Rs. 5000. On the other hand learned counsel for Shri A.A. Siddiqui has argued that the learned Tribunal has, without any justification, reduced the amount of medical expenses & nursing charges while he remained in the Hospital in an injured condition. A.A. Siddiqui as P.W. 1 has stated that he remained admitted in the Special Ward of the Hospital from 10111980 to 151981. According to him he got Xrays done at various places and has filed reports. After transfer to Delhi he was also treated at Delhi. According to him he has spent Rs. 10,000 in medical treatment. The learned Tribunal has observed that Shri A.A. Siddiqui has, however, received some amount as reimbursement which is about half the amount claimed and, thus, awarded a sum of Rs. 3000 as expenses on medical treatment. After considering the findings on record this Court finds that a sum of Rs. 3000 which has been awarded as damages by the learned Tribunal represents approximately the correct amount which has been spent by Shri A.A. Siddiqui on his medical treatment. 17. The next question which arises for consideration is whether A.A. Siddiqui is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000 as nursing charges which has been claimed by him. 3000 which has been awarded as damages by the learned Tribunal represents approximately the correct amount which has been spent by Shri A.A. Siddiqui on his medical treatment. 17. The next question which arises for consideration is whether A.A. Siddiqui is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000 as nursing charges which has been claimed by him. On this question the learned Tribunal has observed that A.A. Siddiqui must have received special diet according to the medical advice and must have also spent some amount as no facilities are provided in the private ward. The award of Rs. 2000 as compensation under this count also does not appear to be on the lower side. Therefore, keeping in view the entire evidence on record we are of the opinion that no enhancement or reduction is required in this amount and the findings of the learned Tribunal on the amount of medical expenses & nursing charges are upheld. 18. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 2000 as salary of attendant while this claim has been allowed for a sum of Rs. 1500 only. At para 44 of the paper book the learned Tribunal has believed the case set up by the claimant that he remained in Hospital and engaged a servant there. In support of his case the claimant has produced Rajesh Kumar (P.W. 7). He has stated that for five months he worked in the Hospital and for 7 months he remained at the residence of Shri Siddiqui after the accident. He was being paid Rs. 300 per month. There is no evidence in rebuttal. The learned Tribunal has also believed the statement of this witness and has held that a sum of Rs. 300 per month cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1500 as damages for five month's period for which the servant worked at the Hospital while Shri Siddiqui was admitted to the Private Ward. The claim of pay for rest of the period has been disallowed on the ground that as the wife of the claimant had looked after him, therefore, the amount paid as salary to the servant cannot be allowed. This reasoning of the learned Tribunal cannot be justified. The learned Tribunal has approached this fact from a wrong angle. The claim of pay for rest of the period has been disallowed on the ground that as the wife of the claimant had looked after him, therefore, the amount paid as salary to the servant cannot be allowed. This reasoning of the learned Tribunal cannot be justified. The learned Tribunal has approached this fact from a wrong angle. Even if services were rendered by the wife of the claimant then it cannot be said that the claimant could not have employed a servant to look after him for the period for which he remained in bed and was not able to do his daily chores, The claimant is entitled to the additional expenses caused by having household run by the servant even if the wife of the claimant was also offering the gratuitous service, therefore, the claimant is entitled to the amount of seven months' pay of the servant which has been proved by the claimant. 19. Thus, in this way, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2100 which was paid by the claimant to the servant for the period of seven months but as the claimant has, in all, claimed a sum of Rs. 2000, therefore, he cannot get more than Rs. 2000. The learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 1500 therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs, 500 more or Rs. 2000 in all on account of the salary to the attendant. 20. Shri A.A. Siddiqui has claimed a sum of Rs. 50.000 on account of mental shock, pain and suffering. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as general damages. The damages on account of mental shock, pain and suffering comes under the 'head general damages', hence it will be dealt with under this head. 21. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment, the claimant remained confined in the Hospital for 5 months and at residence for 7 months. According to the statement of Dr. B.M. Pandey (P.W.5), Shri A.A. Siddiqui remained as an Indoor patient from 10111980 to 151981. 21. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment, the claimant remained confined in the Hospital for 5 months and at residence for 7 months. According to the statement of Dr. B.M. Pandey (P.W.5), Shri A.A. Siddiqui remained as an Indoor patient from 10111980 to 151981. At the time of admission his condition was critical; blood pressure was very low and pulse was very high; he was vomitting; a number of stitches were given on the head as the wound was quite big; his both legs were plastered and he was not able to eat anything; he was also suffering from stomach ache and was given glucose. According to the Doctor, both the legs were swollen and they were kept at a height of 11/2 feet. The wounds were petrifying and there were blisters in the mouth. He was also having insomnia. Thus, this statement of the Doctor goes to show that Shri A.A. Siddiqui was in great agony at the time of the accident and thereafter also during the period of his treatment. The Tribunal has, however, not taken into account the fact that he was constantly under treatment for about a year and he had a number of injuries on his person, and he must have been under constant pain and agony on that account. In our opinion, a sum of Rs. 10,000 will meet the ends of justice under this head. Thus, in this way an additional sum of Rs. 5,000 is awarded to the claimant on account of mental agony. 22. As regards the other damages, claimant has been awarded Rs. 35,000 only against the sum of Rs. 1,00,000. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the amount awarded is on the higher side. The following facts are material for awarding the damages under this, head: 1. The claimant was 25 years of age when the accident took place, 2, He was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Post and Telegraph Department. 3. On account of the accident the Thesis could not be submitted in time. 4. He could not deposit the Life Insurance Premium in time. 5. He was a good player of Volley Ball during his University days and was deprived of this on account of permanent disability in both legs. 6. 3. On account of the accident the Thesis could not be submitted in time. 4. He could not deposit the Life Insurance Premium in time. 5. He was a good player of Volley Ball during his University days and was deprived of this on account of permanent disability in both legs. 6. According to the medical report the permanent disability in the right let is 20% and in the left leg is 30%. He will have to wear shoes with callipers in the left leg for rest of his life. 7. At the time of the accident he was doing field duties which will be affected on account of the injuries in both the legs. 23. There is no precise mathematical formula to assess the amount of general damages to be awarded as compensation to an injured person. Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that the Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. Only a person to whom the shoe pinches can understand the physical pain and mental agony on account of permanent disablement of both the legs. The claimant is bound to suffer from the loss of happiness and enjoyment of life in normal manner. The doctrine of precedence cannot be strictly invoked in the cases of damages, because each case has to be decided in regard to the quantum of compensation having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. We ate of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 40,000 will meet the ends of justice. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 50,000 is awarded under the head of general damages. 24. In this way the claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs. 37, 634.00 in the amount of compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. Km. Sulakshna Pandey and Km. Anuradha Pandey. 25. Both these girls had preferred a common claim against the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,22,500 but they have been awarded a sum of Rs. 41,500 by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation claimed and awarded by the Tribunal is given below: Nature of claim amount claimed amount awarded 1. Loss of education Rs. 50000 Rs. 50000 2. Medical expenses Rs. 500000 Rs. 500000 3. Nursing charges Rs. 200000 Rs. 200000 4. General damages for mental agony, disfigurement of Km. 41,500 by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation claimed and awarded by the Tribunal is given below: Nature of claim amount claimed amount awarded 1. Loss of education Rs. 50000 Rs. 50000 2. Medical expenses Rs. 500000 Rs. 500000 3. Nursing charges Rs. 200000 Rs. 200000 4. General damages for mental agony, disfigurement of Km. Sulakshna Pandey etc. Rs. 1,15,00000 Rs. 34,00000 Rs. 1,22,50000 Rs. 4150000 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has been very liberal in granting a sum of Rs. 34,000 on account of general damages to the two claimants. The claimants have filed crossobjections in which they have prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation under this Head. Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that both the girls should get Rs. 40,000 each as general damages on account of the injuries suffered by them which will affect them throughout their life. Dr. R.B. Kashyap (P.W. 7), Senior Surgeon, U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur had examined Kumari Sulakshna Pandey after the accident. He found the following injury on the person of Kumari Sulakshna Pandey: Lacerated wound 4.1 cm. on lower lip, mouth cavity deep. There was fracture at tooth alveolar margins in upper jaw with loosening of all front teeth. 27. In the opinion of the Doctor this injury was grievous in nature. 28. Dr. Ram Kumar (P. W. 22) has stated that her front teeth were broken and the sockets of the same were also broken. He did refilling. He prepared a plate for the upper teeth which later on became loose and then he again prepared a plate. This plate will be changed every year upto the age of 18 years and thereafter a fixed plate can be installed. Dr. R.N. Sharma (P. W. 5) was Plastic Surgeon in the Medical College, Kanpur. He has also examined Km. Sulakshna Pandey. According to him atleast two operations will be required to correct the face of this girl and even then it cannot be said that the face will become normal. He has also stated that the upper lip of this girl has become thick and has come out on the outer side. Dr. B.M. Pandey (P.W. 1) who is father of these girls has stated that the face of Km. Sulakshna Pandey was damaged in the accident while Km. Anuradha Pandey received head injuries. He has also stated that the upper lip of this girl has become thick and has come out on the outer side. Dr. B.M. Pandey (P.W. 1) who is father of these girls has stated that the face of Km. Sulakshna Pandey was damaged in the accident while Km. Anuradha Pandey received head injuries. He has further stated that inspite of the treatment deformity of the face of Km. Sulakshna Pandey remains; teeth have broken; she has pain in speaking and in taking food. She keeps her hand in front of her mouth when she speaks and she feels inferiority complex while talking to others. The educational standards of both the girls has gone down after the accident. Previously they used to get First or Second Position but now they get 13th or 14th position. Both the daughters have developed a disease of passing urine in the night. All these diseases were not before the accident. The faces of both the girls have deformed and on account of which the marriage prospects will be affected. Km. Sulakshna Pandey is still under treatment. Thus, the statements of these three witnesses will go to show that both these girls have received extensive damages to their faces on account of which they are handicapped. They have also suffered in their education and have developed inferiority complex. They cannot mix up in the society as freely as they were doing before the accident on account of the injuries to their faces. The injuries on the faces of the girls have marred their appearance and affected their future career more than the career of the boys. They cannot also get good match for their marriages and the marriage prospects are also very much affected. Thus, the girls will have to carry with the disfigurement of the face throughout their life. Their normal way of life has been affected and they cannot enjoy life in the normal manner. Keeping in view all these facts we find that a sum of Rs. 30,000 awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side. 29. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kumari Kiran Bala, 1989(1) TAC 162 (Rajasthan). In this case both the thighs were injured permanently and the chances of her marriage had also become very dim and difficult. 30,000 awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side. 29. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kumari Kiran Bala, 1989(1) TAC 162 (Rajasthan). In this case both the thighs were injured permanently and the chances of her marriage had also become very dim and difficult. She could not sit with cross legs or on heels. On the facts of the case the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000. 30. In the present case the statement of the Doctor is unrebutted and the appellant has not led any evidence to rebut this statement of the Doctor. Therefore, keeping in view every aspect of the case, in our opinion, the minimum compensation which will be awarded to each of the claimant under this head will be Rs. 40,000. In this way both the girls are entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 80,000, in all, under this head. 31. Under this head the claimants had claimed a sum of Rs. 15,000 on. account of mental agony while the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs. 4,000 only. Enhancement has also been sought for this amount by the learned counsel for the claimantsrespondents while the award of Rs. 4,000 has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 32. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment both the girls have got permanent disfiguration of their faces on account of the injuries. Km. Sulakshna Pandey's face was deformed on account of destruction of some of the teeth on the upper face. Her lower lip has bulged outside and has also become thickened. Therefore, in view of the injuries which were suffered by both the girls at the time of the accident they must have suffered mental shock, pain and suffering. The claim of Rs, 15,000 on account of mental shock, pain and suffering of both these girls does not appear to be on the higher side. Therefore, claim on this account is increased from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 15,000 meaning thereby an additional increase of Rs. 11,000. 33. In view of what we have said above Km. Sulakshna Pandey and Km. Anuradha Pandey are entitled to a total additional compensation of Rs. 61,000 under the head of general damages. Smt. Usha Pandey 34. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 15,000 meaning thereby an additional increase of Rs. 11,000. 33. In view of what we have said above Km. Sulakshna Pandey and Km. Anuradha Pandey are entitled to a total additional compensation of Rs. 61,000 under the head of general damages. Smt. Usha Pandey 34. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 70,000 as loss of employment in Degree College. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum on this account. The learned counsel for the claimant has argued that the claimant has worked previously as a Teacher and she could have also worked as a Teacher in future, but on account of her injuries, she is unable to take up this vocation. He has further argued that she was also a Radio Artist and was taking part in dance etc. This point has been dealt with in para 23 of the judgmant by the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has found as a fact that Smt. Usha Pandey has worked as Lecturer in National Central College at Kanpur, has taught in Christ King School, Gonda from September, 1978 to September, 1979, she has worked in R.R.T. School, Ranchi from July, 1970 to 1971. She has done M. A., B.Ed. This finding of the learned Tribunal goes to show that in the past Smt. Usha Pandey has worked in the School. She may have also worked as a Teacher in the School in future but on account of this accident in which she has received extensive injuries to her hip joint and knee, she is not in a position to do this work. According to the finding on record, she cannot stand for more than 4 to 5 hours and the permanent disability is to the extent of 75%. Smt. Usha Pandey has also stated about doing teaching work and she has not been crossexamined on this aspect of the case. Therefore, there is unrebutted statement of Smt. Usha Pandey on this aspect of the case and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the claimant Smt. Usha Pandey is entitled to compensation on this account. We do not share the views of the Tribunal that Smt. Usha Pandey is not entitled to any amount under this head. 35. Therefore, there is unrebutted statement of Smt. Usha Pandey on this aspect of the case and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the claimant Smt. Usha Pandey is entitled to compensation on this account. We do not share the views of the Tribunal that Smt. Usha Pandey is not entitled to any amount under this head. 35. Smt Usha Pandey has also claimed compensation on account of the fact that she was also appearing on Door Darshan & was also a Radio Artist but she has not been able to prove this. She has not filed any document to show that she ever worked with the Door Darshan or All India Radio. In para 7 of her statement Smt. Usha Pandey has stated that she has not filed any paper with respect to her dance and vocal performance, she must have got payments from the Door Darshan and the All India Radio and she could have filed copies of the letters received by her from Door Darshan or All India Radio in order to show that she has worked for Door Darshan and All India Radio. Therefore, in absence of documentary evidence on record the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in not awarding any compensation on account of these performances. 36. Even assuming that Smt. Usha Pandey would have been getting Rs. 1000 per month as pay, the total amount for one year comes to Rs. 12,000 and in 20 years period she would have earned Rs 2,40,000 as the age of Smt. Usha Pandey was 38 years as disclosed in the claim petition. We have taken a very meagre amount as salary which Smt. Usha Pandey would have been getting. Even on this estimate she must have earned more than Rs. 70,000 which she has claimed in the present case. Therefore, in our opinion on the consideration of the entire facts and all aspects of the case a sum of Rs. 70,000 is granted as compensation to Smt. Usha Pandey under this head. 37. Smt. Usha Pandey has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,20,000 as medical expenses under three different items. She has claimed Rs. 15,000 as medical expenditure. She has claimed Rs. 5,000 as nursing charges and she has further claimed Rs. 2,00,000 as medical expenditure already incurred in one operation at London and another operation which will be performed in future. 37. Smt. Usha Pandey has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,20,000 as medical expenses under three different items. She has claimed Rs. 15,000 as medical expenditure. She has claimed Rs. 5,000 as nursing charges and she has further claimed Rs. 2,00,000 as medical expenditure already incurred in one operation at London and another operation which will be performed in future. In its judgment the learned Tribunal has come to a finding after discussion of the evidence that Smt. Usha Pandey has spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for her hip joint operation which was done at London. It has also come to a finding that she was referred for her operation out of the Country by the Doctors. There is also evidence on record that she will need another replacement of buttock after every 10 years and there is possibility of second replacement also. The second replacement will also be done at London because the first replacement of buttock has already been done at that place. It is not possible to. say that the second replacement can be done by the Indian Doctors specially when the first replacement of buttock has been done in London. The learned Tribunal has also come to a finding that in the first operation Rs. 1,00,000 were spent by the claimant and that much amount has been granted by the Tribunal. But so far as the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 for future operation is concerned the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the second replacement can be done in India. We cannot appreciate this finding of the learned Tribunal. The second operation will also have to be done at London and the claimant Smt. Usha Pandey will have to suffer an expenditure of more than Rs. 1,00,000 because it Is common knowledge that inflation these days has increased and the value of the money has decreased considerably. The Air Travel has also gone up during the last 10 years. Therefore, the claim of Rs. 1,00,000 for future operation at London cannot be said to be on higher side. The learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 60,000 under this head which does not impress us. Therefore, in bur opinion this amount of Rs. 60,000 should also be increased to Rs. 1,00,000. In this way the claimant has to get Rs. 1,00,000 for future operation at London cannot be said to be on higher side. The learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 60,000 under this head which does not impress us. Therefore, in bur opinion this amount of Rs. 60,000 should also be increased to Rs. 1,00,000. In this way the claimant has to get Rs. 2,00,000 in all, for the medical expenses for her hip joint operation already done and the operation which is to be done in future. This means an increase of 'Rs. 40,000 in the amount under this item. 38. A sum of Rs. 20,000 has been claimed by the claimant on account of the medical expenses and nursing charges which the claimant had to incur during her stay in the Hospital and thereafter. Under these 'items the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 and on the basis of evidence on record we do not find any reason to increase this amount, and the amount fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 15,000 is sufficient for these purposes. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant to the contrary cannot be accepted. 39. Under the head of general damages the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. As to the mental agony the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000 but has been allowed a claim of Rs. 10,000 only. She has claimed general damages of Rs. 50,000 out of which she has been awarded Rs. 10,000 only. On account of permanent disability a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 has been claimed while she has been granted Rs. 50,000. We propose to deal with them one by one. 40. For mental agony the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 only. It is in evidence which the learned Tribunal has found that Smt. Usha Pandey suffered extensive damage to her left as well as right hip and knee. According to the learned Tribunal the total permanent disability is 75% of both the hip joints as well as knee. There is evidence also that she cannot stand for more than 4 to 5 hours at a stretch. The learned Tribunal has held that even at London, opinion was given for another replacement which may be needed in future after every 10 years. There is evidence also that she cannot stand for more than 4 to 5 hours at a stretch. The learned Tribunal has held that even at London, opinion was given for another replacement which may be needed in future after every 10 years. This evidence clearly goes to show that she might have to undergo operations for replacement of hip joints once or twice in her life time. An operation was performed on her in London after about 2 years of accident. During all this period after the accident, Smt. Usha Pandey has suffered mental shock, pain and suffering for sufficiently long time on account of the injuries which she suffered in the accident for no fault of hers. In the opinion of the Court the amount of Rs. 10,000 which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be on the lower side. We, therefore, enhance this amount by Rs. 5,000 making the total amount to Rs. 15,000 on account of mental shock, pain and suffering. 41. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment, Smt. Usha Pandey has suffered 75% disability which she will carry for her entire period of life. She cannot sit cross leg. She cannot stand for more than 4 to 5 hours at a stretch and she cannot walk properly. She will have to suffer pain and suffering for her subsequent operations But the learned Tribunal has merely awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000 as general damages which amount is totally insufficient. Any amount of this monetary compensation to the person of this pitiable and miserable state is too trivial for a plight where the human being is required to lead a life worse than a chattel, always in mental agony, disturbance and disappointment for whole of the life as a curie due to the rashness and negligence of the Drivers of both the vehicles. In view of the facts of this case we increase this amount to Rs. 2,00,000 meaning thereby an increase of Rs. 1,40,000 over and above the amount already granted by the learned Tribunal. In this way the additional amount awarded as compensation to Smt. Usha Pandey comes to Rs. 2,55,000. 42. In view of the facts of this case we increase this amount to Rs. 2,00,000 meaning thereby an increase of Rs. 1,40,000 over and above the amount already granted by the learned Tribunal. In this way the additional amount awarded as compensation to Smt. Usha Pandey comes to Rs. 2,55,000. 42. Learned counsel for the claimant has also argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly granted the interest from the date of the order and not from the date of the application and further the interest at the rate of 9% only has been granted. In a number of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted an interest at the rate of 12% per month from the date of the application till the date of realisation but recently in the case of Rukmani Devi and others v. Om Prakash & another 1991 ACJ 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded an interest at the rate of 15% from the date of petition before the Tribunal till the date of realisation. In that case accident took place on 1461970. Therefore, the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal has to be increased to 15% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation alongwith proportionate costs on the additional amount awarded by this Court. 43. In view of the above, all the appeals filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation are hereby dismissed with costs to the claimantrespondent/respondents. The crossobjections are allowed to the extent indicated heremabove. Thus, claimant A. A. Siddiqui will get total compensation of Rs. 91,13400 instead of Rs. 53,50000 awarded by the Tribunal. In arriving at this figure we have ignored paise 85 only. On the amount of Rs. 91,13400 he shall get interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation/payment. 44. Kumari Sulakshna Pandey and Kumari Anuradha Pandey will together get total compensation of Rs. 1,02,50000 instead of Rs. 41,50000 awarded by the Tribunal. They will also get interest on the sum of Rs. 1,02,50000 at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation/payment. 45. Srimati Usha Pandey will get compensation of Rs, 5,00,000 (Five Lakhs) instead of Rs. 2,45,000 awarded by the tribunal. On the sum of Rs. 41,50000 awarded by the Tribunal. They will also get interest on the sum of Rs. 1,02,50000 at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation/payment. 45. Srimati Usha Pandey will get compensation of Rs, 5,00,000 (Five Lakhs) instead of Rs. 2,45,000 awarded by the tribunal. On the sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs she will get interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation/payment. 46 If any amount has been deposited by the Corporatism either in this Court or in the Tribunal, the same shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the concerned claimant. 47. In each crossobjections, the crossobjectors shall be entitled to costs proportionate to their success. (Cross objections allowed.)