JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Award dated 6.2.87, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 18,000/- and dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant so far as the remaining amount of the claim is concerned. The appellant, in this appeal, has claimed for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 2. Claimant-appellant Roop Raj Vyas filed the claim petition on 18.3.85 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, for the award of Rs. 2,56,800/- as compensation/damages. Out of this amount, Rs. 2,44,800/- have been claimed as loss of income for the next seventeen years; Rs. 2,000/- have been claimed on account of medical expenses incurred by him and Rs. 10,000/- have been claimed towards physical pain and mental agony suffered by the appellant-claimant on account of the accident. The case of the claimant-appellant, as put in the claim petition, was that on 4.12.84, after attending the Office situated at Paota, the appellant, at about 9.00 p.m., proceeding towards his house situated at Jalori Gate, Jodhpur. When he reached near the Public Park on Kutcheri Road, bus No. PBJ 2583, belonging to Border Security Force, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Devi Singh, came from the opposite side. The security- arrangements had been made on the road on account of the visit of the then Prime Minister of India on the next day-and poles were fixed on the road. The bus dashed against the poles fixed on the road and also hit the claimant-appellant. After being hit by the bus, the appellant-claimant became unconscious and was taken to the hospital by the police personnel present there. The driver of the bus, viz., Devi Singh, after hitting the poles and the claimant, did not stop and drove the bus towards B.S.F. Headquarters. He was followed by PW 2 Mauji Ram, S.H.O., Police Station, Mathania, who was on duty at that place on account of the visit of the Prime Minister and he could be able to catch- hold driver Devi Singh near the B.S.F. Headquarters. The claimant was admitted to M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. There was partial paralysis of left side of the face and other injuries were, also, caused to the claimant. The claimant was admitted to M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. There was partial paralysis of left side of the face and other injuries were, also, caused to the claimant. The claim petition, filed by the claimant-appellant, was contested by the non-applicants collectively. The fact of accident was denied but, however, it was admitted that the bus hit the poles. The following of the bus by PW 2 Mauji Ram was, also, admitted. The claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as PW 3 and produced in his evidence PW 1 Dr. G.N. Purohit and PW 2 Mauji Ram, S.H.O. The non-claimants, in support of their case, examined DW 1 Ramkumar Singh, DW 2 Devi Singh the driver of the bus and DW 3 Ramanand, who was a co-passenger in the bus. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after trial, decreed the claim of the claimant in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- against mental agony and physical pain, Rs. 2000/- against medical expenses and Rs. 6000/- as loss of income caused to the appellant-claimant on account of the accident. The claimant-appellant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and has preferred this appeal. The respondents Union of India and others rest contended with the award and neither filed any appeal challenging the award nor filed any cross-objection. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is extremely low because when the hearing and mental efficiency of the appellant was impaired, as has been stated by Dr. G.N. Purohit, then the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in not awarding any amount on this count. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award of 50% of the assessed income for six months was, also, not based on any sound reasoning's. On account of this accident, the appellant could not work and there was the complete loss of future practice and, therefore, the learned Judge of the Tribunal not justified in not awarding the amount of adequate compensation. The learned coups for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counse for the parties. 5. The learned coups for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counse for the parties. 5. So far as the finding arrived-at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal that t accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver Devi Singh is concerned, it has not been challenged by the respondents. Neither any appeal has been filed by the respondents nor any cross-objections have been submitted an therefore, that finding of the learned Judge of the Tribunal becomes final. Even otherwise, from the evidence available on record, the rash and negligent driving of t bus by its driver Devi Singh at the relevant time, has been proved and it has, also, been established beyond reasonable manner of doubt that it was only on account of rash an negligent driving of the bus by Devi Singh that the accident took place and the claimant-appellant received injuries. The finding, arrived-at by the learned Judge of the Tribunal on this point, therefore, does not require any interference and issue No. The rightly been decided by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 6. The only question which requires consideration, is : whether the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is reasonable and adequate? For the determination of this question, I think it proper first to consider the evidence produced by the claimant. PW 1 Dr. G.N. Purohit, who, on the basis of the audio gram issued the certificate and has stated that the hearing efficiency of the claimant-appellant has been impaired and on account of the injuries received by the claimant during the accident, his mental efficiency has, also, been impaired. He has further stated that after looking into Ex. 1 to Ex. 3, he is of the opinion that during the passage of time, the hearing efficiency of the appellant-claimant will become lesser day by day. The claimant PW 3 Roop Raj Vyas, in his statement, has, also, stated that after being hit by the bus, he became unconscious and in this accident his three ribs were fractured and he received internal head-injury which affected his mental efficiency, also. He has, also, stated that the drum of his right ear was, also, fractured, due to which the ear started bleeding. He has, also, stated that the drum of his right ear was, also, fractured, due to which the ear started bleeding. He remained in the hospital and the medical prescriptions etc. relating to his treatment are Ex. 4 to Ex. 6. From the evidence of PW 1 Dr. G.N. Purohit and PW 3 Roop Raj Vyas (the claimant) it has been established that on account of the accident, the mental and hearing efficiencies of the appellant-claimant have permanently been impaired and the injury will affect his future hearing efficiency also. The observation made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal that the injuries have not affected the mental and hearing efficiency of the claimant-appellant, is not correct. From the statement of these two witnesses, it has been clearly established that the mental and hearing efficiency of the appellant-claimant have been impaired. The doctor has specifically stated so. The statement of the doctor reads as under:- " fnukad 10 fnlEcj] 1985 dks xaxwey izkFkhZ dk iqu% vksfM;ksxzke fd;k Fkk ftlds vk/kkj ij izek.ki= eSaus mlh ij tkjh fd;k Fkk tks esjk nLr[krh , ls ch gS] xaxwey ds gLrk{kj lh Vw Mh gSA bu izys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij eSa dgrk gwWa fd izkFkhZ dks de lqukbZ nsus yxk gSA bl pksV ls izkFkhZ ds fnekx ij Hkh vlj iM+k gSA izkFkhZ dk bykt vHkh Hkh pkyw gSA izn'kZ 1 o izn'kZ 3 dks ns[kdj eSa dgrk gwWa fd tSls tSls le; chr jgk gS izkFkhZ ds lquus dh 'kfDr de gksrh tk jgh gSA " The observation of the learned Judge of the Tribunal that the doctor has not stated that the injuries have affected the mental and hearing efficiency, is, therefore, not correct. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for the grant of compensation on this count as general damages and I think it proper to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on this Court to the appellant-claimant. 7. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as loss of income to the appellant-claimant for a period of nine months. The learned Judge of the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 1,000/- but awarded full amount for the first three months and 50% of the amount for the next six months. 6,000/- as loss of income to the appellant-claimant for a period of nine months. The learned Judge of the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 1,000/- but awarded full amount for the first three months and 50% of the amount for the next six months. When the learned Judge of the Tribunal has held that for the period of nine months the appellant could not work in the Court then the grant of 50% of the income for six months was, also, not proper. I, therefore, think it proper to modify this amount and increase it from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 9,000/-, i.e., full amount for nine months at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. 8. So far as the award of Rs. 2,000/- against medical. expenses is concerned, that does not require any enhancement because in the claim petition the claimant himself has claimed Rs. 2,000/- on this count; though later on, during recording of his statement, he has stated that he had spent Rs. 10,000/- towards his medical treatment etc. No evidence has been produced in support of this contention and, therefore, the award of Rs. 2,000/- towards medical expenses etc. passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, does not require any interference. 9. The claimant-appellant claimed Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and physical pain and sufferings and the full amount has been awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and as such the awarded passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal on this count, also, does not require any interference. 10. The learned Judge of the Tribunal did not award any interest and in his Award has mentioned that if the amount is not paid within two months then the claimant will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the award. This part of the order, also, requires modification in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in : General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas & Ors., 1994 ACJ 1 and the appellant-claimant is entitled for the interest @12% per annum from the date of the accident. 11. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant-claimant, is partly allowed. The amount of compensation, awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is enhanced from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 31,000/-. 11. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellant-claimant, is partly allowed. The amount of compensation, awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, is enhanced from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 31,000/-. The claimant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on this amount from the date of the accident till its realisation.Appeal partly allowed. *******