Honble PANWAR, J.–Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 2nd July 1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (hereinafter for short ``the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 35,776/- in favour of the respondent claimant No.1 Harish Chandra (Respondent No.1) (hereinafter for short ``the claimant) in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 272/93 and the appellant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 396 of 1993. (2). Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award impugned, the Executive Engineer, IGNP, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident in question, as well as the Claimant Harish Chandra preferred two separate appeals, challenging the finding of the learned Tribunal. Both these appeals arise out of the one and the same judgment and between same parties and, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment. (3). Briefly stated the facts in both these appeals which are necessary for the decision of these appeals are thus ; On 10.6.1988 at about 1.45 P.M. the claimant Harish Chandra was proceeding on a Moped TVS from Ginnani Matajis Temple. He was proceeding from East to West, at that relevant time, Jeep No. RRF 2242 was driven by Respondent Ram Lal from South to North, collided with TVS Moped resulting thereby that the claimant sustained injuries on his person. He filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The owner and driver who are original non-applicants before the learned Tribunal, filed their respective written statements. (4). On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as 4 Issues. While deciding Issue No.1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant Harish Chandra was negligent to the extent of 60% and the Driver of the Jeep was negligent to the extent of 40%. (5). While deciding the issue of quantum, the learned Tribunal computed the compensation in all for a sum of Rs. 89,440/- but in view of the finding on Issue No. 1, 40% of this amount which comes to Rs. 35,776/-, was awarded in favour of the claimant. (6). In both the appeals challenge is made to the finding on Issue No.1 which relates to the question of negligency. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. (8). 35,776/-, was awarded in favour of the claimant. (6). In both the appeals challenge is made to the finding on Issue No.1 which relates to the question of negligency. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. (8). In para No. 10 of the claim petition, it was pleaded by the claimant that on 10.6.88 at about 1.45 P.M. while he was proceeding on his Luna from Old Ginnani Matas Temple, at that time, he was hit by a Jeep No. RRF 2242 which was driven by its driven Ram Lal rashly and negligently. Due to this accident, he sustained injuries on his legs and ribs. This fact was not specifically denied by the owner of the Jeep as Well as its driver. However, driving of jeep rashly and negligently was specifically denied in their respective written statements. It was further specifically pleaded that there was no negligency in driving the jeep on the part of its driver. He was driving the jeep according to traffic regulations at a slow speed on its correct side of the road, Suddenly the claimant came from wrong side of road. It was averred that the claimant came from right side of the road on a TVS moped, he was riding the moped rashly and negligently. He suddenly collided with the jeep and fell down. It was also pleaded that the said accident was solely on account of rash and negligent act of the claimant himself as he suddenly came from wrong side of the road. (9). The claimant did not lodge the report of this occurrence with the police promptly. However, after about 15 days of the occurrence i.e. on 25.06.1988 police registered the F.I.R. on the basis of statement of claimant while he was admitted in the PBM Hospital, Bikaner. During investigation Site Inspection map was prepared, certified copy of which is on record, though it was not tendered in evidence. (10). The claimant examined himself as PW.1. He stated on oath before the Tribunal that on 10.6.88 at about 2 P.M., he reached to Choraha situated near old Ginnani Matajis Temple on TVS moped, which was driven by him, at the relevant time, a jeep came from his left side and on seeing the jeep, he reduced the speed of his TVS. yet he was hit by the said jeep. yet he was hit by the said jeep. At the time of accident, he was on the wrong side of the road. He sustained injuries on his left ribs and leg, which resulted into fracture of his leg bones. He was taken to the hospital in the very jeep where he was treated from 10.6.88 to 10.7.88. In cross- examination, he stated that road on which he was proceeding was having width of 10-12 feet. He wanted to go on a straight road by crossing the Chouraha. In rebuttal, NAW 2 Ram Lal, Driver of the Jeep, and, NAW 1 Kashi Ram were examined. Both are eye-witnesses. NAW 2 Ram Lal stated on oath that while he was proceeding from Junagarh towards his house, at that relevant time, a moped rider came from the side of Matajis Temple and collided with his jeep. At the relevant time, speed of jeep was 15 K.M. per hour. He stated that moped rider was little fast and was on right of the road when he collided with the jeep. On being asked by him as to why he collided, the moped rider replied that due to the sudden slip of his moped, his moped collided with the jeep and he requested the jeep driver for taking him to the hospital. He further stated that Kashi Ram and Mahendra Kumar were also at the site of the accident. In cross-examination he admitted that when he reached to the Choraha, at the same time moped rider also came to Choraha where accident took place. He denied the suggestion that jeep was being plied on the right side of the road. NAW 1 Kashi Ram stated before the Tribunal that he saw the accident between jeep and moped near Old Ginnani Matajis Temple. Jeep came from Junagarh and crossed the chouraha, at that time a TVS moped came from side of Matajis Temple which was driven by Harish Chandra. He stated that TVS was on the right side of the road and was at a good speed. Jeep was in the centre of the road with a moderate speed. He further stated that TVS collided with the front wheel of the jeep and the rider of the TVS moped fell down on the road. He stated that TVS was on the right side of the road and was at a good speed. Jeep was in the centre of the road with a moderate speed. He further stated that TVS collided with the front wheel of the jeep and the rider of the TVS moped fell down on the road. Jeep stopped on the spot and Driver of the Jeep Ram Lal got down and he asked Harish Chandra as to why he came from wrong side of the road at a great speed. He and the driver of the jeep took Harish Chandra to Hospital in the very jeep. He saw the accident from a distance of 10-12 feet. (11). From the statements of witnesses of both the parties, it is established that the claimant was proceeding on TVS moped from the side of Matajis Temple and he was to go straight on the road from East to West. It is also established that the jeep was plying from south to north and accident has taken place after the jeep having crossed the entire choraha. It is also clear from the site-map (7/4) that instead of going straight from East to West, the claimant took his moped on the right side of the road proceeding towards north. The moped was on the extreme right side of the road, while the jeep was plying in the centre of road from South to North. On appreciating the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the jeep driver as well as moped rider were equally negligent. In para No. 5 of the judgment impugned, the learned Tribunal recorded the following finding:- ^^bl izdkj bl =qfV ds fy, nksuksa okgu pkyd leku :i ls nks"kh gSA** (12). Similarly in para 6 of the judgment impugned, the Tribunal further recorded the following finding:- ^^;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd nksuksa gh okgu pkydksa dh xfr lkekU; ugha Fkh vkSj bl fcUnq ij nksuksa okgu pkyd leku :i ls ykijokgh ds mRrjnk;h gSA** (13). Despite this being the finding of the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the jeep driver was negligent to the extent of 40% and the Moped Rider to the extent of 60%. Despite this being the finding of the learned Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the jeep driver was negligent to the extent of 40% and the Moped Rider to the extent of 60%. In my considered opinion, the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the jeep driver to the extent of 40% and moped rider to the extent of 60% negligent, is not sustainable in view of the evidence on record as also the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal itself, as noticed above. In the instant case, the Driver of the jeep as well as claimant are negligent in equal proportions and, accordingly, the finding on Issue No.1 is modified to the extent that jeep driver was negligent to the extent of 50% as also the claimant was equally negligent i.e. 50%. (14). Learned counsel for the claimant in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 396/93 contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and too low looking to the nature of injuries which has resulted into permanent disablement. Learned counsel for respondent owner of the vehicle Shri Rajesh Joshi supported the computation made by the learned Tribunal. (15). It has been established by the unrebutted testimony of the claimant P.W. 1 Harish Chandra that due to the aforesaid accident he, sustained injuries on his person. Ex.5 Discharge Ticket issued by Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, shows spleenic rupture, fracture of ribs and fracture of left leg bone. This is further corroborated by Ex.7 Discharge Ticket issued by the Orthopaedic & Rehabilitation Department of S.P. Medical College, Bikaner, Wherein it has been shown that the claimant has sustained compound fracture on left leg. Ex.1 issued by Dr. Nirmal Jain, Professor & Head of the Department of Orthopaedic & Rehabilitation, Bikaner, also shows that the claimant sustained the compound fracture of left leg bone which further resulted in shortening of leg by 1 and the disability is of permanent nature. The certificate Ex.1 has been proved by the evidence of PW 2 Dr. Nirmal Jain. He clearly deposed that due to the injuries, the left leg bone of the claimant has been shortened by about one inch and this shortening of leg is of permanent nature. The certificate Ex.1 has been proved by the evidence of PW 2 Dr. Nirmal Jain. He clearly deposed that due to the injuries, the left leg bone of the claimant has been shortened by about one inch and this shortening of leg is of permanent nature. This has also been established from the claimants evidence that he was hospitalized for the period from 10.6.88 to 10.7.88 and thereafter also the claimant remained under treatment for which he remained on leave for the period from 10.6.88 to 28.2.89. He was employee of the Department of IGNP, Bikaner, the owner of the jeep involved in the accident. The claimant remained on leave for the period of about 8 months and he was sanctioned medical leave from 10.6.88 to 7.10.88 and thereafter he remained on privilege Leave (P.L.) from 8.10.88 to 28.2.89. This fact has not been disputed by the employer, the owner of jeep. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that had he not met with the accident, he would have got the amount of P.L. by way of encashment of P.L. at the time of his retirement, therefore, it was contended that the claimant is entitled for the salary for the P.L. period. It has also been established that at the relevant time the claimant was an employee of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (IGNP) and his monthly income was Rs. 1710/-. It was further contended that the compensation awarded for physical pain, sufferings, and mental agony as also for the permanent disablement is at lower side. The learned Tribunal awarded the following compensation:- Rs. 1. Loss of income for the leave period 7,640/- 2. Nourished Diet 1,800/- 3. Permanent Disablement 50,000/- 4. Physical Pain and sufferings 10,000/- 5. Loss of amenities 20,000/- Rs. 89,440/- (16). It is settled law that in appeal the quantum is interfered only when the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the permanent disablement, the computation of compensation made by the Tribunal is at the lower side and thus needs interference. (17). It has been established by the un-rebutted testimony of the claimant that the accident resulted in rupture of spleen, fracture of left rib and compound fracture of Tibia and fibula bones of left leg. (17). It has been established by the un-rebutted testimony of the claimant that the accident resulted in rupture of spleen, fracture of left rib and compound fracture of Tibia and fibula bones of left leg. It has further been established that the claimant was hospitalized for more than one month and thereafter remained under treatment for a considerable long period i.e. for more than 8 months. It has also been established that the claimant remained on leave for 9 months and 20 days. Thus, it is fully established that the duration of treatment was more than 8 months and 20 days and during this period he suffered physical pain, shock, and mental agony. It has also been established that he has availed entire sick leave as also P.L. He has taken sick leave on medical ground for 4 months and P.L. of 4 months and 20 days. He is entitled for the salary if not for the entire period but atleast for the period he remained on P.L. i.e. 4 months and 20 days. Had he not sustained injuries due to the accident he would have either availed the leave for some other purpose or would have got encashed for which he is otherwise entitled. It has been established from the salary certificate placed on record that his monthly salary was Rs. 1585/- and, therefore, loss of income for the period of P.L. comes to Rs. 1585 x 4 months 20 days = Rs. 7396/-. Thus the claimant is entitled for Rs. 7396/-. (18). Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disablement. In my considered opinion this amount appears to be just and reasonable. However, compensation awarded for physical pain, shock and mental agony and discomfort etc., is at lower side. Keeping in view the longevity of period of hospitalization and treatement, in my considered opinion, it would be just and proper to allow a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings etc. (19). Learned Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for loss of amenities. This amount appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. (20). Learned Tribunal failed to award any compensation for the attendants. Looking to the nature of injuries, and longevity of the treatment, it is reasonable to compensate on account of expenses incurred on attendants during the period of treatment. 20,000/- for loss of amenities. This amount appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. (20). Learned Tribunal failed to award any compensation for the attendants. Looking to the nature of injuries, and longevity of the treatment, it is reasonable to compensate on account of expenses incurred on attendants during the period of treatment. The services rendered by the attendants, may be family members, need to be computed in terms of money. In my considered opinion, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, the claimant in all is entitled for Rs. 1,27,396/-. (21). Since the claimant has been held contributory negligent to the extent of 50%, he is entitled to compensation to that extent, which comes to Rs. 63,688/-. Thus, in my considered opinion, the claimant is entitled for total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,688/-. (22). In view, of the aforesaid discussion, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 272/93 filed by the owner is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimant, Harish Chandra, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 396/93 is allowed to the extent indicated above and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 35,776/- to Rs. 63,688/- with interest at the rate and from the date allowed by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.