JUDGMENT M.W. Deo, J. 1. This appeal is by owner of the motor vehicle against an award of Rs. 1,85,822.66 with interest at 12 per cent per annum in favour of respondent on account of injury to the left leg resulting in permanent disability. 2. Briefly stated the undisputed facts of the case are that on 9.10.1979 a bus bearing registration No. MPC 7714 belonging to the appellant went out of order and, therefore, it was being towed by another bus bearing registration No. MPW 9256 also owned by the appellant and driven by its servant Kalusingh, appellant No. 2. It is also not in dispute that the bus which was towed and was in the rear hit the claimant causing injury to her left leg. 3. Briefly stated the claim of the respondent-claimant was that the driver of the front bus drove it rashly and negligently and suddenly applied brakes on a busy Agra-Bombay Road at Indore with the result that the bus tied behind lost its direction, went to the left side and hit the claimant. 4. The aforesaid allegation of rash and negligent driving was denied by the appellant and the driver. 5. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence, found that the driver drove the bus rashly and negligently and caused the accident. We have carefully gone through the evidence on the point of rash and negligent driving and we find that the evidence of the respondent is supported by even the driver of the bus which was being towed to the effect that as the front bus driver suddenly applied brakes, the towed bus lost its direction and went to the left side and hit the claimant. The behind bus was tied with the help of a long iron angle piece which was really hazardous for towing the bus on main road like Agra-Bombay Road manifestly, such make-shift arrangement could not have left any effective control on the direction of the bus towed. Consequently, there is no room for disturbing the finding of rash and negligent driving resulting in the accident. The finding is confirmed. 6. The main thrust of the appellant was vis-a-vis the quantum. The relevant facts for purposes of quantum are that the claimant alleged that she was employed as a P.R.O. in Choithram Hospital on a monthly salary of Rs. 700/- in the month of July, 1979. The finding is confirmed. 6. The main thrust of the appellant was vis-a-vis the quantum. The relevant facts for purposes of quantum are that the claimant alleged that she was employed as a P.R.O. in Choithram Hospital on a monthly salary of Rs. 700/- in the month of July, 1979. As stated above, the accident occurred on 9.10.1979. The allegation of the respondent was that she has suffered a permanent disability of her left leg on account of stiff knee and stiff ankle preventing her from bending the leg from either of the two joints. It is said that the respondent, therefore, was unable to serve for remaining period of life. The respondent admittedly was 48 years old on the date of accident. The evidence on record led by the respondent herself from the mouth of Suresh, AW 2, who is the Head of the Medical Records in the Choithram Hospital, is that the age of retirement of employees is 58 to 60 years. The respondent further submitted that she had to spend a sum of Rs. 7,822.66 on expenses of her treatment. She claimed this amount as special damages. The respondent claimed general damages of Rs. 50,000/- on account of bodily pain and suffering and a sum of Rs. 1,17,600/- on account of loss of wages on the basis of a simple arithmetical calculation of loss of Rs. 700/- per month for the remaining period of service including possible extension of 2 years. 7. The learned Tribunal found that the expenses on treatment to the tune of Rs. 7,822.66 were proved and awarded the amount. We see no reason to disturb this finding in view of the facts that the respondent was admitted in the hospital on 9.10.1979 and was an indoor patient till 29.12.1979-a period of about two and a half months-during which she underwent operation of her knee joint and also repairs for wasting of muscles as also the left ankle. The respondent also proved documents, Exhs. C-1 to C-3, in support of this item of special damages which appears to be absolutely reasonable considering the nature and dimension of injury and the length of treatment as indoor patient, leave alone the treatment after discharge. The item of special damages to the tune of Rs. 7,822.66 awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. That brings us to the next item of loss of wages.. The item of special damages to the tune of Rs. 7,822.66 awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 8. That brings us to the next item of loss of wages.. The learned Tribunal despite referring to the weighty observations in the case of Mangilal v. Pramod 1988 ACJ 307 (MP), which said that arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master, allowed itself to be mechanically governed by 'bad master'. The learned Tribunal merely used simple arithmetic in arriving at figure of loss of wages by multiplying the pay of Rs. 700/- per month for a period of 12 years assuming that the respondent, who was 48 years, would have served up to the age of 60 year's. It is exactly here that the learned Tribunal lost sight of fact like uncertainty of life and the circumstances attending upon the appointment of the respondent. It is in the evidence of Suresh, AW 2, that the respondent was appointed in the month of July subject to confirmation by a screening committee and that the confirmation was never done before the date of accident. We are, therefore, not sure as to the result of screening. The learned Tribunal also failed to consider the evidence of Suresh that the age of retirement in the hospital was 58 to 60 years and assumed the age to be maximum of 60 years. The learned Tribunal further erred in not considering the factor of uncertainty of life while assessing lump sum payment for loss of wages. 9. It is to be seen that the Supreme Court observed in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), that a claimant should not be permitted to make a fortune out of misfortune that has befallen him, but also further observed that the approach of the Tribunal about quantum of compensation should not be niggardly but should be justly generous. The approach of the learned Tribunal virtually converted the misfortune into a fortune by the use of mechanical arithmetic as stated above. We have already observed that the evidence is that the respondent was employed at the age of 48 years on the pay of Rs. The approach of the learned Tribunal virtually converted the misfortune into a fortune by the use of mechanical arithmetic as stated above. We have already observed that the evidence is that the respondent was employed at the age of 48 years on the pay of Rs. 700/- per month temporarily, she was not made permanent before accident, the age of superannuation can be 58 years and eyes cannot be closed to the factor of uncertainty of life while assessing such a lump sum compensation for long period. In the aforesaid circumstances we feel that loss of wages deserves to be restricted by reducing the amount by 30 per cent on account of aforesaid factors. We assess the amount of compensation due to loss of wages at Rs. 65,600/-. 10. Coming to the question of compensation due to pain and sufferings. The learned Tribunal provides a typical illustration of not reading and understanding the full facts and findings of a ruling and applying it mechanically. The learned Tribunal granted Rs. 50,000/- on account of bodily pain and sufferings on the basis of Mangilal's case, 1988 ACJ 307 (MP). It is to be seen that in that case a global amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded as compensation which included bodily pain and sufferings as also special damages for expenses of treatment and all other counts. The learned Tribunal, therefore, was slip-shod in awarding Rs. 50,000 on the basis of Mangilal's case (supra) for only bodily pain and sufferings in the case before it. In the facts of the present case we limit the amount to Rs. 40,000/- as the respondent had suffered a permanent disability of knee and ankle of the left leg at the age of 48 years. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and the total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is reduced by Rs. 42,400/-. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal of Rs. 1,85,822.66 is reduced to Rs. 1,43,422.66. We see no reason to incurred interfere in the rate of interest which shall be calculated on the amount as modified by this court. In view of partial loss and success of both sides, costs shall be borne as incurred.