JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Appeal No. 134/83 (Ismile and Ors. v. Tillumal and Others). 2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment-A ward dated 8.1.1983 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shajapur passed in Claim Case No. 4/79 and 5/79 whereby the respondent No. 1 Subhashchandra (in M.A. No. 133/83) and respondent No. 1 Tillumal (in M.A. 134/83) have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,250.00 each with a direction of payment of interest @ 1 % per month from the date of filing of application till realisation of the amount with a further direction of payments to be made jointly and severally by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e. non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, owner and driver of the bus) and appellant No. 3 - New India Assurance Co. 3. As per the Claim petitions filed by both the Claimants i.e. Tillumal and Subhashchandra Sharma, on 13.8.78 both of them were coming from a motor-jeep No. MPD 3146 belonging to M.P.S.R.T.C. (respondent No. 3 here). It was being driven by driver Mukhtyar Aslam (respondent No. 2 here). They were going from Shajulpur to Shajapur. At about 9.20 A.M. when they reached Sarangpur-Akodiya road the motor-bus No. MPN-7057 driven by Bashiruddin-appellant No. 2 (N.A. No. 2) was coming from opposite side. The vehicle was being driven at a high speed and because of the rash and negligent driving of Bashiruddin (non-applicant No. 2 appellant No. 2 here), it dashed against the jeep. Both the Claimants sustained various injuries including the fracture of mandible. They were taken to the hospital where they were treated. They had to under-take treatment of nearly three months and could not attend to their duties. 4. Subhashchandra Sharma was working as a ticket-examiner. He was on duty at the time of accident. He spent nearly 2,000/- rupees in coming and going to hospital and in making payment for the medicines and such other expenses. He was mentally up-set for a long period. He had to suffer severe pain and mental agony. He; therefore, Claimed Rs. 88,000/- for that. Thus, Subhashchandra Sharma Claimed compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. vide Claim case No. 4/79. 5. Tillumal has also reiterated the same facts about the accident and further pleaded that, he had spent nearly Rs. 2,500/- for treatment and other expenses. He had to suffer severe pain and mental agony. He; therefore, Claimed Rs. 88,000/- for that. Thus, Subhashchandra Sharma Claimed compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. vide Claim case No. 4/79. 5. Tillumal has also reiterated the same facts about the accident and further pleaded that, he had spent nearly Rs. 2,500/- for treatment and other expenses. He also has to suffer pain and mental agony and Claimed Rs. 87,500/- for the same. Thus, he had also filed a Claim petition No. 5/79 for a compensation of Rs. 90,000/-. 6. Appellants who were non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have filed joint but separate written-statements in both the Claim petitions. It has been asserted by them that driver Bashiruddin was driving the motor bus with a moderate speed. The jeep belonging to M.P.S.R.T.C. came from front at a very high speed. It was driven by non-applicant No. 3 (respondent No. 2 here) Mukhtyar Aslamkhan. It dashed against the right side of the motor bus as a result of which the occupants of the jeep sustained injuries. They have further asserted that the claim is highly exaggerated and there was a collusion between the doctor and the claimants. As such the injuries have been shown to be very serious. 7. Learned Tribunal by two separate judgments passed in both the Claim petitions viz. No. 4/79 and 5/79, have awarded compensation as above. Hence, these two appeals by the appellants here. 8. Respondents Subhashchandra and Tillumal, both have filed cross-objections in both the appeals and Claimed that they should be awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each. 9. In the memo of appeal and during the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the driver of the jeep was at fault and it was driven by Tillumal who was under the spell of alcohol. It has also been contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the injured persons have sustained only the simple injuries and they in collusion with the doctors have exaggerated the impact of injuries. 10. As against it learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-bus by the appellant No. 2. They have further submitted that the loss and injuries and damages have been estimated on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced. 11. 10. As against it learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motor-bus by the appellant No. 2. They have further submitted that the loss and injuries and damages have been estimated on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced. 11. The first point which arise for determination is as to who and whether the appellant No. 2 i.e. the driver of the motor bus was responsible for the accident. 12. On perusal of pleadings in paragraph 2 of written statement it has been stated that the bus-driver was plying the vehicle in accordance with the traffic Rules and had kept the vehicle on his right side. It has further been pleaded that the motor-jeep instead of going towards its right-side it came to the left-side and dashed against the motor-bus. But during his evidence as witness No. 1 of non-applicant Bashiruddin has stated mat the motor-jeep came from the front side and dashed against the right side of the mud-guard of the motor-bus. In such a position motor-jeep driver was justified in coming from his left side of the road and same was expected from the motor-bus driver also. But he (motor-bus driver) was probably driving the vehicle by covering the major portion of his right side of the road. In that position motor-bus driver would be held liable for rash and negligent driving. 13. In the written statement non-applicants (appellants here) have expected that motor-jeep was being driven by the driver Mukhtyar Aslam. But in the statement Bashiruddin has stated that the vehicle was being driven by Tillumal and after the accident smell of alcohol was found coming from his mouth. This assertion of Bashiruddin is against the pleading. Thus, there is variance in the pleading and proof. 14. Though strict rule of pleading does not apply in claim-cases but if there is a variance in the written-statement and statement in the Court that can definitely be taken into consideration. Though the observation made by the learned Tribunal in para 9 of its judgment/Award that the driver of Haroon Bus was not examined, does not appear to be correct. But looking to the variance of the pleading and proof the assertion of the appellants cannot be accepted. 15. No other evidence showing the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor-jeep has been adduced. But looking to the variance of the pleading and proof the assertion of the appellants cannot be accepted. 15. No other evidence showing the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor-jeep has been adduced. No question has been put to the doctor who examined Tillumal and Subhashchandra immediately after the accident as to whether they had consumed liquor or whether the liquor smell was present in their mouth. Thus, this assertion of the non-applicant has rightly been rejected. 16. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the non-applicant driver Bashiruddin has rightly been held responsible for rash and negligent driving and for the accident This finding does not call for any interference. 17. Now so far the compensation is concerned, Subhashchandra has stated that he has spent money for purchase of milk and fruits. He has produced receipts nearly 8 in number showing the expenditures incurred for purchase of milk and fruits. The total of that amount comes nearly to Rs. 1,140/-. Learned Tribunal has refused to award any amount on this count as the same has not specifically been Claimed in the petition, but has on the other hand awarded Rs. 250/- towards the expenses of medicines. Subhashchandra and Tillumal both are employees of M.P.S.R.T.C. Both may have received some expenses of medicines from their employer. No evidence to show that the expenses for the medicines have not been claimed by them from their employer M.P.S.R.T.C., which is a body corporated and Government of Madhya Pradesh Undertaking and, therefore, they are not entitled for any amount towards the expenses for purchase of medicines. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that the patients of accident who have sustained such injuries are required to take special the t including fruits, milk and such other things and, therefore, reasonable expenses towards that may be paid to them. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the relations of such injured persons are required to attend them, expenses are required to be incurred for taking the patients to the hospital alongwith the attendant if any and for taking him back to home. 18. Similarly, Tillumal has also adduced nearly nine receipts showing the expenses for purchase of milk and fruit. The total of the expenditure shown therein comes to nearly Rs. 1,267.50. 19. 18. Similarly, Tillumal has also adduced nearly nine receipts showing the expenses for purchase of milk and fruit. The total of the expenditure shown therein comes to nearly Rs. 1,267.50. 19. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, both the Claimants i.e. Subhashchandra and Tillumal are entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as compensation towards the expenses for special the t expenses for attendant and transport charges. 20. The two Claimants (respondents here) have prayed for relief of enhancement of compensation amount. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,600/- each, towards the general damages including compensation of pain and suffering. 21. Subhashchandra Sharma has examined himself and stated that he could not work nearly for about 1 1/2 months. He has stated about the injuries sustained by him. Doctor R.P. Sinha (AW.3) in both the Claim cases Nos. 4/79 and 5/79 has stated that he examined Subhashchandra Sharma on 13.8.78 and found nearly 13 injuries on his body and most of the injuries were on the face. He has advised for X-ray examination of injuries Nos. 1 to 9. He has also stated that the X-ray photograph was taken and he found crack-fracture of left arbi in the mandible and the half of the teeth of left part of the lower jaw was missing. 22. Regarding the injuries of Tillumal he has stated on examination on the same day that he found nearly 11 injuries on the body of Tillumal and had advised X-ray examination of injuries Nos. 1 to 5. He has further stated that there was a fracture of the angle of lower mandible. 23. Thus, the injuries sustained by the two claimants Subhashchandra and Tillumal has rightly been found proved by the Tribunal. 24. The two claimants i.e. Subhashchandra and Tillumal have not examined any officer of M.P.S.R.T.C. to show as to whether they were granted leave by their employer and what pay and allowances they were receiving on the date of accident. 25. Thus, in the absence of proof as to the special loss of earning and wages they have rightly not been awarded any amount on that count. 26. The claimants have not proved the permanent disability (total or partial) or permanent disfiguration. However, looking to the nature of injuries the possible pain and suffering including the future deficiency the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be taken to be unjust. 26. The claimants have not proved the permanent disability (total or partial) or permanent disfiguration. However, looking to the nature of injuries the possible pain and suffering including the future deficiency the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be taken to be unjust. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation amount for the general damages is on the higher side while learned Counsellor the respondents has submitted that it deserves to be enhanced. 27. In the opinion of this Court while assessing the damages in cases of accidents some conjectures and surmises are bound to be made. Taking into consideration the overall view of the accident the amount of compensation awarded on this count appears to be fair and just. It neither requires to be reduced nor enhanced. 28. As a result both the appeals fail and are dismissed. However, the cross-objections in both the cases are partially sustained, and the compensation is raised from Rs. 10,250/- to Rs. 11,000/- each. Thus, Claimants Subhashchandra and Tillumal are entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,000/- each. This principal amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The appellants shall bear their own cost and shall pay the cost of respondents. Counsel's fee Rs. 400/-.