JUDGMENT 1. - The claim petition of both these appellants were decided together by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by a common order on 21st January, 1986. Both of them have preferred separate appeals for the enhancement of compensation awarded to them. The brief facts are that on 17th August, 1982 both the appellant were proceeding on their Scooter number RNB 6554 from Amer to Jaipur. Kailash Chand was driving the Scooter while Satya Narain was riding on the pillion seat.At about 7.15 p.m. when they were in the way on the Amer Road, bus number RNB 1470 came from the opposite side and hit the Scooter which was on its left side and was going at a slow speed. Both the persons on scooter fell down and got injured and the scooter was also damaged. Kailash Chand claimed a sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- while appellant Satya Narain claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,22,000/-. The bus driver and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the RSRTC) were made parties and they contested the negligence of the bus driver as a cause of the accident but the learned Judge of the Tribunal has given a finding on the basis of the evidence that rash and negligence driving by the driver of the bus was the cause of the accident. It was accepted that the scooter driver was also negligent in causing the accident. Each of the claimant was awarded Rs. 22,000/- by way of compensation with interest C@ 10% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim. 2. In order to access the correctness of the compensation awarded to the two claimants it is necessary to look into the injuries which were sustained by them. The cases may be considered one by one. Satya Narain is a person whose age at the time of the accident was about 40 years and he was employed in the Bank as Head Cashier. As a result of the injuries sustained by him there were three fractures in his leg and he had to remain admitted in the hospital up til 17th March, 1983. Dr. Chandra Shekhar treated him and five times the leg had to been plastered. Even after March, 1983 a small plaster had to remain on the leg. As a result of the injuries sustained by him there were three fractures in his leg and he had to remain admitted in the hospital up til 17th March, 1983. Dr. Chandra Shekhar treated him and five times the leg had to been plastered. Even after March, 1983 a small plaster had to remain on the leg. After 17th March, 1983 he joined his duties but he had to go everyday to the Hospital for physiotherapy. According to him, he is unable to climb the stairs, cannot walk at a fast speed, cannot band his leg and often has pain and cannot stand for a long time. The further loss stated by him that his house was under construction and material costing about Rs. 10,000/- was wasted. He has also stated that from 'D' category Bank, he has been sent to 'B' category Bank which has resulted to a loss of Rs. 100/- per month of him. Dr. C.S. Sharma, was a reader in the Orthopaedic in the SMS Hospital and he treated Satyanarain as well as Kailash Chand. According to him, Satya Narain was admitted on 17th August, 1982 to 29th August 1982 then from 8th October, 1982 to 9th October, 1982 then from 26th November, 1982 to 28th November, 1982. Satya Narain had compound fractures in his leg and thigh and it has caused the permanent disability because he cannot squant the foot also does not remain straight on the floor. The injury report has been produced and the certificate issued by Dr. C.S. Sharma is Ex. 13. A certificate of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur where he was employed showing his annual gross income as Rs. 25,585/- was also filed. 3. Before coming the rulings which have been cited on behalf of the appellants, the injuries of Kailash Chand and the evidence in this respect may also be looked into. His age was about 22 years at the time of the accident. He also suffered three fractures in his right leg; two below the knee and one above the knee. He remained under plaster of the whole body for 31/2 months. For the first occasion he remained in the hospital for 13 days and on the second occasion he remained for one day. The plaster was continued and he was treated by Dr. C.S. Sharma who advised him to contact Dr.P.K. Sethi, who suggested quardricopsplasty. He remained under plaster of the whole body for 31/2 months. For the first occasion he remained in the hospital for 13 days and on the second occasion he remained for one day. The plaster was continued and he was treated by Dr. C.S. Sharma who advised him to contact Dr.P.K. Sethi, who suggested quardricopsplasty. He cannot climb the stairs and cannot keep standing for long and cannot walk for a long distance. At the time of accident he was a student of LL.B. third year and could not appear in the examination for three years. He was also working part time with Ram Sahai and Sons and was getting Rs. 400/- per month. He also stated that there were problems in his marriage. He admitted that Ram Sahai and Sons was a partnership firm in which his brother was a partner. However, he has not produced any accounts of the firm to show that he was being paid Rs. 400/- per month. Only a salary certificate has been produced and this has been signed by his brother Ram Babu. His injury report is on the record along with admission and discharge tickets. He was examined by Dr. P.K. Sethi on 23rd April, 1985 when his complaint was about knee stiffness and the knee friction was 1100 and he was advised for quadricopsplasty but it appears that this was not done. According to him he has lost his job and the result of the LL.B. had not been declared. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that both the claimants have suffered partial permanent disability and the amount of award to them is hardly a compensation for the injuries receiving by them. For the injuries Rs. 18,000/- was awarded to each of the claimant and to this a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as expenses of treatment was added. It is contended that nothing has been awarded for mental agony, physical pain and amount assessed as expenses for treatment is also very negligible. 5. A number of decisions have been relied upon. In Bindu v. Chandra Shekhar and others, (2) 1987 ACJ 1092 the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- when a girl aged 10 years suffered fracture of leg and skin loss which required skin grafting. This was a permanent disability. The appellant was awarded Rs. 70,000/- in which Rs. 5. A number of decisions have been relied upon. In Bindu v. Chandra Shekhar and others, (2) 1987 ACJ 1092 the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- when a girl aged 10 years suffered fracture of leg and skin loss which required skin grafting. This was a permanent disability. The appellant was awarded Rs. 70,000/- in which Rs. 15,000/- for future expenses on grafting, Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and pain and Rs. 30,000/- for loss of prospects in profession, vocation, marriage and domestic life has been included.In Ajmer Singh v. Driver Joginder Singh and others, 1988 ACJ 74 the injured suffered permanent disability in the form of stiffness of knee and ankle joint and was unable to drive scooter or walk alone or run. The total compensation awarded was Rs. 50,000/- which included Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disability, Rs. 7,000/- medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- transportation charges and Rs. 8,000/- as leave charges. In Mangal Kishore Kaul v. Union of India, 1989 (2) ACC 631 for permanent disability a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- was awarded which included expenses of future operation, shortening of leg, loss of earning, hospital expenses, for accommodation taken on rent and conveyance. In Swatantra Kumar Lamba and another v. Sheila Didi and another, 1989 ACJ 786 it was held that the injured or his relatives were not expected to keep all the receipts and vouchers intact and compensation was awarded taking into consideration the period of hospitalisation, nature of injuries operation and other treatment. The latest decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Gangwal v. Subhash, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 89/1983 decided on 20th September, 1989 , a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was allowed to the injured claimant for not being able to get married and Rs. 40,000/- on account of financial loss because of the expenses. Besides this, the Tribunal had already allowed Rs. 30,000/- on account of future loss and mental agony. 6. With the above guidelines it can be seen that whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate or not. 7. As far as Satyanarain is concerned, he is in job and is continuing the work in the Bank and it cannot be said that his prospects have been affected. However, he did not suffer loss on account of the accident but had remained in plaster for a number of times and had to undergo physiotherapy. 7. As far as Satyanarain is concerned, he is in job and is continuing the work in the Bank and it cannot be said that his prospects have been affected. However, he did not suffer loss on account of the accident but had remained in plaster for a number of times and had to undergo physiotherapy. His injury has been categorised as partial permanent disability. It is not possible to keep account of all the expenses incurred in the hospital. It would be proper to award Rs. 25,000/- for the pain and agony suffered due to the resulting in fractures, Rs. 10,000/- for the expenses incurred by him in his treatment and Rs. 5,000/- for the additional expenses for undergoing physiotherapy. The total comes to Rs. 40,000/-. 8. The appellant Kailash Chand is also entitled the above amount of Rs. 40,000/- in the categories enumerated above and besides this, he should be allowed up a carrier. It is not necessary to award any compensation on account of not being getting married because he has a very slightly limp and he himself has admitted that no one has refused to marry him on account of his accident. 9. In the result, the amount of compensation of Satyanarain is enhanced from Rs. 22,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- and the compensation awarded to Kailash is enhanced from Rs. 22,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- . The amount which has been enhanced shall carry interest 12% per annum from the date of the submission of the claim petition namely 27th January, 1983. Both the appeals are allowed as indicated above.Appeals allowed accordingly *******