JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. The appellant owner of truck No. MPI 3229 has directed this appeal against the award dated 5.10.1989 rendered by II Additional MACT, Indore, in Claim Case No. 79 of 1987, thereby partly allowing the claim petition filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and awarding compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till recovery against the appellant and respondent No. 2. 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. On 11.4.1982, respondent No. 1, claimant along with his relative, Chintaman, was going on bicycle from village Sinhasa to Indore. Respondent No. 1 was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle and Chintaman was cycling. It is alleged that when they reached near Chandan Nagar, Indore, at the same time truck No. MPI 3229 coming from opposite direction rashly and negligently, all of a sudden came to its wrong side and hit bicycle of respondent No. 1, resulting in the accident. In the accident, grievous injuries were caused to respondent No. 1 on his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately taken to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore, for the treatment, where he had undergone an operation and remained admitted there till 20.5.1982. Respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for awarding of the compensation for the injuries caused to him in the aforesaid accident against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also appellant. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of appreciation of the evidence on record, partly allowed claim and awarded compensation in favour of respondent No. 1 and against appellant-respondent No. 2, as indicated above. 3. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellant owner of the truck has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Ashok Kutumbale, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Patwa, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. R.K. Bhadang, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dhupar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 5. The appellant, owner of the truck, challenged the award on several points as stated in the memorandum of appeal. We have heard Mr. Ashok Kutumbale, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Patwa, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. R.K. Bhadang, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dhupar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. 5. The appellant, owner of the truck, challenged the award on several points as stated in the memorandum of appeal. However, at the time of submissions in this Court, the counsel for the appellant restricted this appeal only to the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and did not challenge other findings including the findings about exoneration of the insurance company from the liability. The counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the income of the victim of the accident is taken as true then also the level of compensation is excessive and deserves to be scaled down. In further pursuit, he submitted that non-examination of the claimant in Court is vital infirmity and in face of this, the Tribunal was not justified to pass award to the extent of Rs. 1,10,000. He, therefore, submitted that the claimant was not entitled to get compensation in excess of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 6. In oppugnation, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, supported the impugned award and submitted that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1, claimant. The findings of the learned Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the evidence which do not require any interference in this appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the contentions of the learned Counsel appealing for the appellant, whereas learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from payment of any compensation, is well founded and requires no interference in this appeal. 7. We have carefully perused the record and evidence of the parties on record. Respondent No. 1 in his claim petition has stated that in the alleged accident, grievous injury was caused on his head, which resulted into fracture of the skull bone. After the accident, he was admitted to the hospital and remained unconscious for a period of about four months. Respondent No. 1 in his claim petition has stated that in the alleged accident, grievous injury was caused on his head, which resulted into fracture of the skull bone. After the accident, he was admitted to the hospital and remained unconscious for a period of about four months. It is alleged that due to accident, he lost his eye sight and is also mentally affected causing disability to perform his regular duties and earn his livelihood. He claimed total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the claim petition. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- against the expenses incurred for his treatment and Rs. 1,00,000/- for disablement caused to him as a result of the aforesaid accident. 8. On the point of disability caused to the claimant, he examined Dr. Kuldeep Birani (PW 5) and Dr. J.S. Kathpal (PW 7) in support of injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1, claimant. From the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, this fact is amply proved that in the alleged accident, grievous injury was caused to the respondent No. 1 on his head, resulting into fracture of the skull bone. From the statement of Dr. Birani, it is also proved that broken piece of the skull bone was removed from the head through surgical operation. From the statement of Dr. Kathpal and Chintaman (PW 2) this fact also stands proved that after operation and the treatment, the respondent No. 1 has become mentally deficient and is not in a position to work normally for the rest of his life. Dr. Kathpal also stated that on examination, his left half part of the body moves less compared to the right, which is suggestive of damage to the right side of the brain. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Dr. Kuldeep Birani and Dr. Kathpal on the point of injury and disablement caused to the respondent-claimant. 9. The Tribunal, considering the nature of injury and treatment given to the claimant, awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the treatment and purchase of medicine, nourishing foods, etc., is not improper and the same requires no interference in this appeal. 10. With regard to general damages, the Tribunal has held that before the accident, respondent No. 1, claimant was earning Rs. 300/- per month from the work of radio mechanic and was also earning from agricultural work. 10,000 for the treatment and purchase of medicine, nourishing foods, etc., is not improper and the same requires no interference in this appeal. 10. With regard to general damages, the Tribunal has held that before the accident, respondent No. 1, claimant was earning Rs. 300/- per month from the work of radio mechanic and was also earning from agricultural work. Considering the mental deficiency and permanent disablement caused to the claimant, in our view, compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head appears to be slightly on higher side. 11. It is settled principle of law that in case of permanent disablement, the Tribunal should be liberal in assessing compensation, as the claimant has to suffer for the whole of life for the disabilities caused to him. In the present case, respondent No. 1, claimant is a young man of 22 years of age. In view of mental and bodily disabilities caused to the claimant, in our considered view, Rs. 90,000/- under the head 'general damages' would be just and proper compensation, which should be awarded in the case at hand. In view of the above, we reduce total compensation from Rs. 1,10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation of the amount. 12. It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that claimant, respondent No. 1, has not entered in the witness box to corroborate the facts alleged in the claim petition and as such adverse inference may be drawn against the claimant. 13. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal (para 18 of the impugned award) the Tribunal has properly considered this aspect and has held that in presence of other unimpeachable evidence on record, non-examination of the claimant does not affect the case of the claimant and in view of the facts considered by the Tribunal, no adverse inference can be drawn against respondent No. 1, claimant, on this count. The objection raised on behalf of the appellant is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted at this stage in this appeal. 14. As a result of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and in place of total compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-, it is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 14. As a result of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and in place of total compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-, it is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.