Short Note Bhawani Singh, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 24.6.1993 of the Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Seoni in Claim Case No. 48 of 1992. Accident took place on 12.8.1996 on National Highway No.7. The claimant suffered injuries to his leg and over medial of left clavicle and damage to Luna on which he was moving at the relevant time. Allegation is that the bus No. MBW 1389 owned by M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and driven by Prabhudayal rashly and negligently hit the Luna of the claimant resulting in the accident and injuries to his person. As a result of this accident. claimant had to take treatment at Jaslok Hospital and Bhiwandi (Bombay) for about eight months. Claimant has filed cash memos with respect to expenditure on treatment. total amount of which is Rs. 35.000.00. Total claim for Rs. 1.13,500.00 was raised by the claimant. The case of the respondents is that bus was being driven with reasonable speed and with care. Tt was the claimant who committed fault in driving Luna which struck with the rear part of the bus resulting in the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver. therefore. claim is not maintainable. In support of his claim. the claimant has stated that it was the driver of the bus who was negligent. driving the bus at fast speed resulting in the accident and injuries to him. These injuries are sought to be proved by Dr. Yatish Kumar Verma (PW1). Dr. M.N. Tripathi (PW 5) and Dr. Dinesh Sharma; due to this accident, there is shortening of the leg of the claimant to the extent of 1 c.m. The driver of the bus has appeared in this case and stated that he was not negligent in driving the bus and the accident was not caused by him. Blame has been thrown on the claimant. Traffic Havaldar Uma Shankar states that he was on duty at the crossing. He signalled the claimant to stop but he did not obey him and swayed the Luna resulting in the accident against the front tyre. But we have serious doubt about the presence of this witness at the spot since he has stated he could not judge whether Luna struck against the front tyre or the rear tyre of the bus. He signalled the claimant to stop but he did not obey him and swayed the Luna resulting in the accident against the front tyre. But we have serious doubt about the presence of this witness at the spot since he has stated he could not judge whether Luna struck against the front tyre or the rear tyre of the bus. When he was present on the spot, it was not difficult for him to notice how the accident took place, who was responsible for that and against which tyre of the vehicle, the luna struck. One more fact is noticeable from the evidence that the bus caused skid marks on the road showing that it was being driven at a fast speed. With this evidence, it is not difficult to hold that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the respondent No. 1 for which it is responsible. Evidence to the contrary does not inspire confidence and the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence correctly resulting in wrong finding on this aspect of the matter. Next question is what compensation is payable to the claimant. Doctors have not clearly stated the extent of disability. The claimant himself states that his leg is shortened by 1 c.m., whereas Doctors say that it shortened by 2 inches. This discrepancy is serious and creates doubt about the extent of injuries suffered by the claimant. Therefore, it would be proper to fix the permanent disability at 1 c.m. Claimant remained under treatment for about eight months, spent Rs. 35, 000.00 on medical treatment. He was government servant at the relevant time. therefore. he must have realised the treatment expenditure from the State Government. The only aspect left is pain and suffering the claimant had to undergo for the injuries and during the course of treatment. We think, interest of justice would not suffer in case lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000.00 (fifty thousand) is awarded to the claimant in this case. No other point was raised for consideration. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) towards compensation for pain and suffering due to injuries suffered by him and during the course of treatment. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% (six per cent) per annum from the date of application till payment. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 (rupees fifty thousand) towards compensation for pain and suffering due to injuries suffered by him and during the course of treatment. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% (six per cent) per annum from the date of application till payment. The amount of compensation awarded be paid to the claimant within three months.