Usha Mehra, J. ( 1 ) RAVINDER Singh, the appellant has filed thisappeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter calledthe act ) against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter called the M. A. C. T.) dated 27/03/1983. ( 2 ) THE admitted facts on accord are that the petitioner sustainedinjuries because of the collusion of two buses bearing No. D. L. P. 4342. andbus No. D. L. P-3793 driven by respondent No. 1 namely Jatinder Singh. Both these buses were operating under the operation of Delhi Transportcorporation (hereinafter called as d. T. C ). Bus No. D. L. P. 3793 was beingdriven by respondent No. 1. Respondents 2 and 3 are stated to be theowners of this bus. This bus was insured with respondent No. 4 i. e. thenew India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter called the insuranceco. ). The second bus D. L. P. 4342 was being driven by respondent No. 5dilbag Singh. Respondent No. 7 is the owner of the said bus and that buswas attached with respondent No. 6. The said bus was insured with respondent No. 8 National Insurance Company Limited. ( 3 ) BY the impugned award the Tribunal held that the petitionersustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. D. L. P. 3793 driven by Shri Jatinder Singh, respondent No. 1, and therefore,allowed the compensation against respondents 1 to 4. ( 4 ) BY the present appeal the appellant has not assailed the decisionof the M. A. C. T. with regard to negligence. The award is challenged onlyon the ground of insufficiency of the quantum of compensation awarded. ( 5 ) THE accident took place on 2/10/1972. The petitioner. aged 23 years, was travelling as a passenger in bus No. D. L. T. 4342. Thesaid bus. was going to Maurice Nagar, when bus No. D. L. T. 3793 comingfrom the opposite direction hit the bus in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result of this accident petitioner s right hand was fractured at twoplaces; Fracture hummerous right middle third and commuted fracture-fracture of upper shaft ulna. Flash was peeled off from the whole of theright hand forearm. There was profuse bleeding and bones had becomevisible. The petitioner was removed to Irwin Hospital where he remainedas an indoor patient from 2. 10. 1972 to 5/01/1973. Flash was peeled off from the whole of theright hand forearm. There was profuse bleeding and bones had becomevisible. The petitioner was removed to Irwin Hospital where he remainedas an indoor patient from 2. 10. 1972 to 5/01/1973. He was againadmitted in hospital on 8/03/1973 for further treatment as an indoorpatient. The skin grafting was done from both legs and belly and plasticsurgery was also done during the treatment. While in hospital, the petitionerprofusely bleeded for number of days, as a result of excessive bleeding hebecame unconsious. Two persons were engaged to attend upon him continuously and thus expenses were incurred on attendants as well as on conveyance. The petitioner was given extra nourishing diet during this period. The blood was purchased in order to give transfusion to the petitioner. Thepetitioner was a Lathe Turner, at the time of the accident, and was workingin a company but due to the disability he was discharged from service. Thedoctor opined that his disability was permanent and to the extent of 70-75%. ( 6 ) THE petitioner through the testimony of Public Witness 7, Dr. Sita Gupta,an Associate Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College,shri Khazan Singh, Record Clerk, lrwin Hospital (P. W. 9), and from thetestimony of Dr. Arun Goel. Head of the Department of Orthopaedics, (P. W. 11) proved the injuries sustained by him and the treatment undertakenby him. Dr. Arun Goel (P. W. 11) testified that the petitioner can do manualwork but of a very mild nature. His right elbow has become stiff and cannotmove as a result of which with the right hand he cannot perform any work. Similarly, there is a limitation on the movement on the finger joints. Elbowof the petitioner is fixed in 70 degrees as a result of this the petitioner hasdeveloped physical disability to the extent of 70-75% of the. right upper limband this disability as permanent. The fact that the disability is to the extentof 70-75% and of permanent nature, has not been subjected to crossexamination. Similarly the fact that his elbow has become stiff and cannotmove or be used, has not been challenged. Nor it was challenged thatmovement of his finger joints are restricted. It is in this background, Mr. O. P. Goyal, Counsel for petitioner assailed the decision of the M. A. C. T. that extent of injuries sustained by the petitioner was 50%. Similarly the fact that his elbow has become stiff and cannotmove or be used, has not been challenged. Nor it was challenged thatmovement of his finger joints are restricted. It is in this background, Mr. O. P. Goyal, Counsel for petitioner assailed the decision of the M. A. C. T. that extent of injuries sustained by the petitioner was 50%. In fact in arriving at this conclusion the M. A. C. T has completely ignored the unrebuttedevidence of medical experts. The Tribunal fell in grave error in discardingtheir testimonies. Dr. Arun Goel (P. W. 11) has in clear words stated that onthe basis of the injuries sustained by the petitioner he could say that his disability was of permanent in nature and that the extent was 70-75%. I findforce in this submission of the Counsel for the petitioner because by nostretch of imagination the M. A C. T. could hold that the disability was to theextent of 50%, in view of the categorical statement of Dr. Arun Goel (P. W. 11 ). ( 7 ) HAVING held that the disability was of permanent nature and the extent of disability at 72% I. e. the mean of 70% to 75%, the question would nowarise, what could be the income of the petitioner in 1980 i. e. after he wasdischarged from service ? The M. A. C. T. assessed the wages or salary of thepetitioner as of 1980 as per Notification issued by the Delhi Administrationfixing the wages of a Turner in Delhi @ Rs. 320. 00 P. M. I do not find anyground to interfere with this assessment because no record from the Officethe petitioner where he was working at the relevant time was produced, toprove as to what would have been his salary in 1980. Hence M. A. C. T. rightly relied on the notification issued by Delhi Administration while assessing the income of the petitioner. The petitioner would also be entitled tobonus because a workman in a factory under the Labour Laws is also entitledto Bonus. So taking this factor into consideration, I consider that the petitioner would be earning somewhere near Rs. 350. 00 P. M. Taking into consideration the disability at 72% P. A. the amount would come to Rs. 252. 00rounding off to Rs. 250. 00p. M. , multiplied by 12, it would come to Rs. 3,000. 00p. So taking this factor into consideration, I consider that the petitioner would be earning somewhere near Rs. 350. 00 P. M. Taking into consideration the disability at 72% P. A. the amount would come to Rs. 252. 00rounding off to Rs. 250. 00p. M. , multiplied by 12, it would come to Rs. 3,000. 00p. A. The M. A. C. T. has applied the multiplier of 20 years whichmultiplier, to my mind, is quite reasonable. So applying the multiplier of 20years the general damages would be assessed at Rs. 60,000. 00 i. e. (Rs. 3. 000. 00x20==rs. 60,000. 00 ). As regard the damages awarded by the M. A. C. T. onaccount of mental agony, special damages claimed for conveyance, medicine etc. assessed by the M. A. C. T. at Rs. 60,000. 00 by the M. A. C. T. , tomy mind, is quite fair and reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with thesame. I accordingly modify the award of the M. A. C. T. and hold that thepetitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 66,000/. On this amount therewill be no deduction. However, deduction as ordered by the M. AC. T. of asum of Rs. 1,000/ already received by the petitioner from the Criminal Courtwill remain. Thus after deducting this Rs. 1,000. 00 the net amount of compensation payable to the petitioner would come to Rs. 65. 000. 00 on which the petitioner would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9/o per annum from thedate of application till realisation. This amount the petitioner will be entiledto recover from respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally. Trial Court file besent back.