D. P. S. CHAUHAN, ACTG. C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 19. 2. 1998 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad in Claim case No. 35 of 1994, whereby the tribunal recorded finding that the claimant could have been entitled for the compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000 in total, out of which he was entitled for Rs. 50,000 for mental agony, Rs. 25,000 for permanent disability and for being deprived of enjoyment of his life, Rs. 20,000 for continuous treatment throughout his life, Rs. 18,000 was determined as the amount spent on treatment and Rs. 2,000 as miscellaneous expenditure which he might have spent during the duration of his treatment on his diet. ( 2 ) THE claim case was rejected on the ground that the claimant was a pillion rider and does not fall in the category of third party and also a finding was recorded that at the time of the accident scooter was not being driven rashly and negligently. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for appellant-claimant, Mr. Kamal Singh and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Sanjay agrawal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as the finding regarding rash and negligent driving is concerned, the Tribunal has erred. In this connection he submitted that the injury suffered by the claimant indicates that the scooter was driven fast and it was on account of the negligent driving of the driver, the scooter turned down. Rear wheel of the scooter got punctured and if the scooter was not in fast speed, then it could have stopped itself. The injury sustained by the claimant was of such a nature that he has to go for operation of his head and he also developed disease of fits which was of permanent nature. He also suffered loss of memory. ( 5 ) THESE facts are not denied and this goes to establish that the scooter was driven rashly and it involves the negligence of the person who was driving the scooter and as such we are satisfied that the scooter was driven rashly and negligently. The other question is regarding insurance of the pillion rider. ( 5 ) THESE facts are not denied and this goes to establish that the scooter was driven rashly and it involves the negligence of the person who was driving the scooter and as such we are satisfied that the scooter was driven rashly and negligently. The other question is regarding insurance of the pillion rider. The insurance cover note is on the record, which indicates that the insurance was for two persons, one for the scooter driver and the other for the pillion rider and in view of this the finding as recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the pillion rider was not insured, is not correct. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this court dated 15. 9. 1998 given in ashok v. Narmada Bai, 2000 ACJ 553 (MP), wherein reliance was placed on the case of the Supreme Court in Amrit Lal sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 acj 531 (SC ). ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the policy covers two persons and the matter relating to injury and the treatment was also not disputed and in this view of the matter, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the finding regarding entitlement of the claim by the claimant as recorded in para 15 of the award appealed against. ( 7 ) IN view of above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant-claimant is entitled for the claim of Rs. 1,15,000 in total together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. Appeal allowed. .