JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment I dispose of two FAOs No. 263 of 1994 titled Sat Parkash @ Sat Pal v. Vishnu Dutt and another, and No. 320 of 1994 titled Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar v. Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal and another, as both the appeals have arisen from the award dated 1.10.1993 passed by Motor Accident Tribunal, Ambala which awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- by way of compensation to Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal injured. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.3.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. the appellant was coming from Chandigarh to village Bhanu on his tractor trolley bearing registration No. HRX 5612 and the tractor trolley was being driven by him on extreme left side of the road at a very slow speed. When he reached near village Ramgarh at about 5.30 p.m., a Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-02/0306 came from behind. The driver of the bus was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and he struck the bus against the tractor trolley of the appellant from behind without giving any indication. Due to the collision the appellant fell down from the tractor and came under the bus and received multiple injuries. After getting first aid from a private hospital at Ramgarh the appellant was removed to PGI, Chandigarh where he remained admitted for 12 days and was operated upon. As a result of the injuries, fingers and thumb of left foot i.e. major part of the left foot of the appellant had been amputated. The tractor trolley was also badly damaged. The appellant also claimed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by way of damages to the tractor trolley and Rs. 3 lakh on account of injuries suffered by him. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents, who filed separate written statements. The factum of accident was admitted but it was denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Rather, it was stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. it was pleaded that when the bus in question reached near village Ramgarh, tractor was going in front of the bus in the same direction. Rather, it was stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. it was pleaded that when the bus in question reached near village Ramgarh, tractor was going in front of the bus in the same direction. However, a truck came from the opposite side in rash and negligent manner and the bus driver had to apply sudden brakes. The bus could not be driven to katcha portion on the left side as there was 50 feet deep ditch. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the impugned accident was caused by respondent No. 1 by driving the offending vehicle rashly and/or negligently ? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to any amount of compensation, if so, how much and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief." 5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of proceedings issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. Issue No. 2 was partly decided in favour of the appellant and he was awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- by way of compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment. No. 3 was disposed of with the (sic). 6. Both the parties are not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal. The State has filed FAO No. 320 of 1994 on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, while Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal has filed FAO No. 263 of 1994 on the plea that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and there is a scope of enhancement. 7. I have heard Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate on behalf of the claimant/appellant, Mr. Sultan Singh, AAG, Haryana on behalf of Haryana Roadways and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 8. The Haryana Roadways has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1. Otherwise also, I find the reasoning given by the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the injured/appellant just and cogent. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that the bus came from behind and it dashed against his tractor. 8. The Haryana Roadways has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1. Otherwise also, I find the reasoning given by the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the injured/appellant just and cogent. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that the bus came from behind and it dashed against his tractor. This aspect of the case has also been admitted by the driver of the bus, but his stand was that from the opposite side a truck came in a rash and negligent manner and he had to apply brakes all of a sudden and as a result of that the bus came into contact with the tractor trolley. It was the duty of the driver of the bus to keep a considerable distance between the two vehicles. A vigilant driver can always expect that driver of the vehicle going ahead of him can apply sudden brakes. Since the driver of the bus did not keep considerable margin between the tractor trolley and bus and he struck the bus from behind against the tractor trolley, therefore, there is no difficulty on my part to hold that the driver of the bus was negligent when he was driving the heavy vehicle. In this view of the matter, I affirm the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1. 9. It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- is on the lower side. He has pointed out two defects in the findings of the Tribunal under issue No. 2. The first defect, according to Mr. Arora is that proper totalling has not been done and secondly the learned Tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties on this issue, it will be appropriate for me to reproduce paras No. 11 to 17 of the impugned order as under :- "Issue No. 2. In order to prove this issue, claimant when appeared as PW2 deposed that he fell down the tractor and came under the bus due to the collision. He further deposed that he received injuries in his head and left foot. He also deposed that after getting first aid from dispensary at Ramgarh, he was removed to PGI where he remained admitted for 12 days. He further deposed that he received injuries in his head and left foot. He also deposed that after getting first aid from dispensary at Ramgarh, he was removed to PGI where he remained admitted for 12 days. He also deposed that he got 28 stitches in his head. He further deposed that he was discharged by the doctor from P.G.I. on the plea that there were more serious patients to be admitted. He further deposed that he had to take a private room on rent at Chandigarh and had been visiting P.G.I. daily for getting treatment for a period of about two months after discharge. He further deposed that he took a room on Rs. 500/- per month as rent and used to spend Rs. 40/- daily on transport for going to P.G.I. He also deposed that he was prescribed special diet by the doctor. He further deposed that he had also been getting treatment from some doctor after discharges from P.G.I. and spent Rs. 200/- in getting treatment from that doctor. He also deposed that he spent a sum of Rs. 500/- on special diet and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- on medicines. He further deposed that even after the treatment he cannot work properly and that he is still having pain in his foot. He deposed that he even cannot sit properly. He also deposed that he was an agriculturist and also used to some dairy farming business and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. He further deposed that after the accident he was unable to do his normal work and hence he had to discontinue his dairy business and to employ a servant on monthly sum of Rs. 800/- for doing the agriculture work. 12. The deposition of this witness remains unrebutted. The claimant has also examined Dr. Ashok Sarwal who appeared as PW1 and proved permanent disability certificate Ex.P.A. Ex.P.A. has been issued by Board of Doctors of Civil Hospital, Ambala City consisting of Civil Surgeon, Ambala, Principal Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Ambala City and Dr. Ashok Sarwal an Orthopedic Surgeon. 40% permanent handicapped due to the injuries received by the claimant in the accident has been mentioned in Ex.P.A. It has also been so deposed in so many words by P.W.1 Dr. Ashok Sarwal. Ashok Sarwal an Orthopedic Surgeon. 40% permanent handicapped due to the injuries received by the claimant in the accident has been mentioned in Ex.P.A. It has also been so deposed in so many words by P.W.1 Dr. Ashok Sarwal. Claimant has also placed on record treatment cards from Ramgarh Dispensary Ex.PB and that of P.G.I. Chandigarh which is Ex.P.C. Treatment sheet from PGI in original had also been placed on record which is Ex.P.D. 13. From the aforementioned documentary as well as oral evidence, claimant has been able to prove that he received injuries in his head and left foot on account of accident. He had to remain under treatment of P.G.I. for a period of three months. he received as many as 28 stitches in his head. Major portion of left foot had to be amputated as is clear from permanent disability certificate Ex.P.A. as well. Due to the permanent disability, he became incapable of doing hard labour. Hence he got loss in his future earning as well. 14. Taking into consideration all the aforementioned aspects of the case, the claimant is allowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for expenditure having been incurred by him on medicines, for hiring room at Chandigarh to get treatment from P.G.I. for expenditure on transport and expenditure on special diet etc. 15. Claimant is further alleged a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for permanent physical handicapped and for his loss in future earning. Claimant is also allowed of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for earning. Claimant is also allowed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. 16. Further so far as compensation for damages to tractor is concerned, claimant when appeared as PW2 deposed that he had to spend about Rs. 30,000/- in getting his tractor repaired. Bills Ex.PE to Ex.P.G. have also been placed on record. He has also examined P.W.3 Ashok Kumar Proprietor Atam Tractors Hissar Road, Ambala City who deposed that the claimant had purchased tractor parts for Rs. 14,869.02 vide bill Ex.P.E. dated 4.7.92. P.W. 4 Karan Singh deposed that the repaired the said tractor and charged Rs. 300/-. However, claimant has failed to prove that the spare parts which were purchased vide bill Ex.P.E. by him were necessitated as a result of damage in the accident. 14,869.02 vide bill Ex.P.E. dated 4.7.92. P.W. 4 Karan Singh deposed that the repaired the said tractor and charged Rs. 300/-. However, claimant has failed to prove that the spare parts which were purchased vide bill Ex.P.E. by him were necessitated as a result of damage in the accident. No surveyor report from any surveyor has been placed on record, However, a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that some damage must have been caused to the tractor trolley due to collision with the bus. As the bus struck against the tractor trolley from behind as a result of which the claimant fell down the tractor, there must have been heavy impact. Hence a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is allowed as compensation for damage to the tractor trolley. 17. As a sequel to my above discussion, a total sum of Rs. 60,000/- is allowed as compensation on account of injuries received by the claimant due to the accident and a further sum of rs. 10,000/- is allowed as compensation on account of damage to the tractor trolley, for which both the respondents are liable jointly and severally. Accordingly, this issue stand decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents." 10. In this case the two fingers and big toe of the left foot of the injured were crushed. According to PW1 Dr. Ashok Sarwal, the appellant suffered 40% permanent disability. He must have spent an amount on medicines. He must have suffered a lot of pain and suffering. There is a loss of limb of the body. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as follows :- Rs. 20,000/- for medicines; Rs. 30,000/- for permanent physical disability; Rs. 10,000/- by way of loss of earning; Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs. 10,000/- for damage caused to the tractor trolley. If all these amounts are totalled properly, the compensation comes to Rs. 80,000/-. Thus there is a clerical mistake on the part of the Tribunal when it awarded Rs. 70,000/- in all. Still I feel that there is a scope of increase of Rs. 20,000/- more and this amount can be paid towards loss of limb and on account of pain and suffering. In this manner, I allow a total sum of Rs. Thus there is a clerical mistake on the part of the Tribunal when it awarded Rs. 70,000/- in all. Still I feel that there is a scope of increase of Rs. 20,000/- more and this amount can be paid towards loss of limb and on account of pain and suffering. In this manner, I allow a total sum of Rs. 1 lakh to appellant Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal, besides interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The amount of compensation shall be paid within two months from today and the amount already paid by the State shall be adjusted. The net result is that the appeal filed by the Haryana Roadways is hereby dismissed while the appeal filed by Sat Parkash alias Sat Pal is partly allowed and it is hereby declared that the appellant shall get a total compensation of Rs. 1 lakh besides interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition and the amount already paid to the appellant shall adjusted. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.