JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 8-E/86 dated 23.12.1986 by the First Additional District Judge, Shajapur, who was pleased to award Rs. 14,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased/plaintiff Kanhaiyalal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 1.4.1984, when the deceased plaintiff Kanhaiyalal was returning home from his agricultural field at village Kevdakedi in the evening, he met, behind his son, Mangilal and Bapulal at some distance. After the appellants crossed the deceased Kanhaiyalal, they started beating him with stick, saria and darata. Because of the injuries received by him, he was hospitalised. A complaint was lodged and the deceased/plaintiff Kanhaiyalal was hospitalised at Shajapur. He remained hospitalised upto 20.4.1984. He had to keep attendants at Shajapur and spent about Rs. 2,000/- for the medical expenses. He could not get completely healthy and was required to be medically treated at his home. Because of the injuries the deceased Kanhaiyalal could not sit or stand-up without the aid of someone and the agricultural work that he was performing could not be performed by him due to the disability he received because of the beating by the appellants. He filed a suit for compensation for Rs. 11,000/- for pain, shock, suffering and injuries; Rs. 5,000/- for medical and other expenses; Rs. 3,000/- for permanent disability and attendance and Rs. 2,000/- for the loss of his vocation. Thus, demanded Rs. 21,000/-. The suit was contested by the appellants. The trial judge held that the plaintiff has proved the injuries as having been caused by the appellants. The injuries proved were a fracture in the head and palsy in left hand and the leg. He became completely disabled. After appreciating the evidence, the lower Court held that the plaintiff was able to prove Rs. 1,000/- by. way of medical expenses and attendance and also granted Rs. 11,000/- by way of compensation for pain, shock and suffering etc. In all Rs. 14,000/- were awarded by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that disablement being a personal cause died with the claimant and, therefore, no decree could have been passed after the death of Kanhaiyalal. It is also argued that though there are no bills, the lower Court granted Rs. 1,000/- for medical treatment, etc. is unjust. 14,000/- were awarded by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that disablement being a personal cause died with the claimant and, therefore, no decree could have been passed after the death of Kanhaiyalal. It is also argued that though there are no bills, the lower Court granted Rs. 1,000/- for medical treatment, etc. is unjust. The decree could not be passed for the interest on the compensation amount. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that when the suit was filed by the deceased himself and continued by the legal representatives of the deceased during the pendency of the suit, the suit cannot be defeated on the ground of personal cause. He argued that the evidence of the deceased was taken by the Court and it was only thereafter that the plaintiff died. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel contended that the claim cannot be defeated as being the compensation for a personal cause. He argued that looking to the hospitalisation, which is proved by the medical evidence of bed head sheet and the examining Doctor, the treatment in the First place rendered for more than 21 days and then the plaintiff was required to be taken to Ujjain and thereafter also required to be treated at home, it cannot be told that Rs. 1000/- could not have been granted. Infact, he argued that but or the cross-objections having not been filed, the respondents were entitled to the full claim on medical and attendance heads. He argued that the evidence of the deceased was taken on commission since he was not in a position to attend the Court due to the disability arising out of the injury he received at the hands of the appellant. He argued that inspite of detailed cross-examination it is not disproved that the appellant was in the hospital for 24 days in Shajapur and thereafter was taken to Ujjain and taken treatment at his home. His evidence that he had spent Rs. 5,0001- through Mangilal, the son, ought to be accepted as a sole knowledge. He had stated that he spent about Rs. 5,000/- in the long treatment that he had undergone. His evidence that he had spent Rs. 5,0001- through Mangilal, the son, ought to be accepted as a sole knowledge. He had stated that he spent about Rs. 5,000/- in the long treatment that he had undergone. He argued that in the cross-examination it has come out that the deceased was required to call medicines while in bed and since he had not gone personally, he could not be blamed for not having bills, with him and not submitting them in the Court. So far as interest is concerned, he said that under Section 34, the Court has got the discretion to grant interest on decreetal amount. On overall appreciation, I agree with the trial Court's findings. from the evidence of Kanhaiyalal, the deceased, who has stated how the incident took place and how he was beaten by the appellant. He has been supported by the documentary evidence from the public record of the hospital in the form of bed head sheet whereby the injuries caused by an attack is proved. Ex. Pit, P/2 and P/3 proved that immediately the matter was reported to the police at hospital and Ex. P/3 very clearly names the appellant No. 1 and others. In that view of the matter, the causing of the injuries by the appellants is not in doubt and I confirm the findings of the trial Court on that count. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, there is an evidence of the deceased Kanhaiyalal who has stated that he had spent Rs. 5,0001- and when the lower Court has granted only Rs. 1,000/-, I do not find the appreciation of evidence in any case required to be changed. So far as the interest is concerned, the contentions on behalf of the respondents are well founded and I do not see the grant of interest requires to be up-set. The argument that the disablement to be a personal cause cannot be transferred to anyone else in principle may be disputable but the injured himself had filed the suit and it is continued by the legal representatives who would have naturally inherited the estate in the form of amount of compensation which the deceased would have received, therefore, the claim cannot be defeated by hyper-technical arguments. In that view of the matter, I confirm the findings and decree of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. In that view of the matter, I confirm the findings and decree of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs. The advocate's fee, as per the schedule.