JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 6th April, 1994 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur in M.A.C.T. Case No. 151 of 1989 by which the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the claimant-respondent No. 1 and against the appellant M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and its driver (respondent No. 2). 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and Award dated 6th April, 1994, the Corporation filed an appeal assailing the finding of rash and negligency of its driver (respondent No. 2) and as also, the quantum of compensation. 3. The claimant has filed cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. for enhancement of the Award. 4. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. B.S. Bhati appearing on behalf of the Corporation and learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant Mr. Lalit Kawadia and perused the record of the case. 5. A claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 1,42,000/-. The case of the claimant as pleaded is that on 17th May, 1989, at about 8.00 P.M. while A.W. 1 Amanullah Khan along with P.W. 2 Surendra Kumar were proceeding on a Moped No. RJJ-5107 from Khadgada to Bowadi via Sagwara, at that relevant time, a Bus bearing No. MKS-8092 owned by the Corporation came from opposite direction being driven at a great speed rashly and negligently by its driver hit the Moped and its rider. Due to this accident, the claimant Amanullah Khan and pillion rider Surendra Kumar sustained severe injuries. This accident resulted in fracture of claimants right hand as well as fracture of fingers of the right hand as also an injury on the right shoulder. A report of this occurrence was promptly lodged at the police station, Sagwara by A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar Ex. 1. Site inspection Note and site-Map (Ex. 2) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The claimant was medically examined by the doctor who prepared injury report (Ex. 3), X-ray plate (Ex. 4) and Report of the Radiologist (Ex. 5) were also filed by the claimant before the Tribunal. 6. It was pleaded by the claimant that at the time of accident, the claimant was 30 years of age and he was running a shop of Ready-made garments. His monthly income was Rs. 2,250/-. 3), X-ray plate (Ex. 4) and Report of the Radiologist (Ex. 5) were also filed by the claimant before the Tribunal. 6. It was pleaded by the claimant that at the time of accident, the claimant was 30 years of age and he was running a shop of Ready-made garments. His monthly income was Rs. 2,250/-. Soon after the accident, he was removed to Sagwara Hospital and from there he was taken to Hospital at Modasa (Gujarat) where he remained admitted for a period about 20 days. Thereafter he was taken to Ahmedabad for treatment, where he remained under treatment for a considerable long period. It was also averred that he has incurred Rs. 30,000/- for treatment expenses. He suffered physical pain and mental agony and also could not attend his shop for a period of six months and as such, he has sustained a loss of Rs. 9,000/- at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day on account of non-attaining the shop. It was also averred that because of injuries and the numerous fractures, his right hand has been impaired and resulted in permanent disability. The Moped on which, he was riding got damaged. 7. The Corporation and its driver (respondent No. 2) filed a joint written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as three issues. In support of the claim, A.W. 1 Amanullah, A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar were examined and the documents i.e. F.I.R. (Ex. 1), Site inspection Note and site-Map (Ex. 2), Injury Report (Ex. 3), X-ray Plate (Ex. 4) and X-ray report (Ex. 5) were filed. In rebuttal, D.W. 1 Murtaza Khan Examined. 8. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the appellant-Corporation and its driver and held that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 2, the claimant sustained severe injuries. 9. Issue No. 2 relates to the quantum of compensation. While deciding this issue. the Tribunal assessed Rs. 10,000/- for treatment expenses, Rs. 3,000/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs. 27,000/- for injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant and as also, for physical pain and suffering and for mental agony which the claimant suffered due to the accident and as such in all the Tribunal awarded Rs. While deciding this issue. the Tribunal assessed Rs. 10,000/- for treatment expenses, Rs. 3,000/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs. 27,000/- for injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant and as also, for physical pain and suffering and for mental agony which the claimant suffered due to the accident and as such in all the Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- in favour of the claimant and against the appellant-Corporation and its driver jointly and severally. 10. Learned Counsel for B.S. Bhati appearing for the Corporation contended that it was the injured claimant himself negligent in driving the Moped. He next contended that the Tribunal fell in error while computing the compensation and the amount awarded is on higher side. 11. Mr. Lalit Kawadia, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant supported the finding on issue No. 1 relying on the testimony of A.W. 1 Amanullah and A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar as well as on Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate and, therefore, deserves to be enhanced. 12. I have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. 13. P.W. 1 Amanullah stated on oath before the Tribunal that on 17th May, 1989 at about 8 P.M. he alongwith A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar were going on a Moped No. RJJ-5107, from Khadgada to Govadi via Sagwara. He was driving his moped on the left side of the road. A bus owned by the Corporation bearing No. MKS-8092 came from opposite direction which was driven at a great speed. He further stated that right side head light of the bus was on. He took his Moped on the edge of the road and brought it halt. He further stated that the light of the Moped was also on. Despite this, the bus came with a great speed and hit the moped and its riders resulting thereby due to this impact, he fell down and sustained injuries on his right hand and other parts of the body. The injuries resulted into fractures of right hand and two fingers. The veins of his leg and fingers got cut. It was also stated that the bus was driven by respondent No. 2 Murtaza Khan. The injuries resulted into fractures of right hand and two fingers. The veins of his leg and fingers got cut. It was also stated that the bus was driven by respondent No. 2 Murtaza Khan. He was taken to Sagwara Hospital where he was admitted for treatment but he was referred to Modasa for further treatment where he remained admitted for treatment. Since the Doctor treatment him, was involved in some criminal case, therefore, on his arrest, he went to Ahmedabad and got further treated for about 8-10 months. He was treated and operated and a steel rod was inserted in his right hand. Despite treatment, it resulted in the movement of his right hand. He claimed a loss of income at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day because on account of his non-sitting on the shop as he was under treatment. This witness also stated that Moped owned by him was damaged and he has incurred Rs. 3,200/- on account of repair charges. On cross-examination, he stated that the Doctor who treated him at Modasa never used to give bills and prescription slip for treatment given by him. 14. A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar was an eye witness of the occurrence as he was pillion rider and has also sustained injuries in very same accident. This witness also stated on oath before the Tribunal that he was going along with Amanullah Khan on a Moped. At about 8 P.M. a bus owned by the Corporation came from opposite direction, which was driven with a great speed. By seeing the bus coming from opposite direction, A.W. 1 Amanullah Khan reduced the speed of his Moped. Despite that, the bus came from opposite direction and hit them. By this accident. Amanullah sustained injury on his hand, which resulted into fracture and also on his leg and other parts of the body. He went and called Gulabchand and thereafter took Amanullah Khan to Sagwara Hospital. A report of this occurence (Ex. 1) was lodged by this witness at police station, Sagwara. This witness categorically stated that the bus came from wrong side of the road and hit the Moped and its rider. He further stated that the fractured hand and fingers of Amanullah Khan are not property functioning and he could not undertake any job for about 8-9 months. He further stated that Amanullah Khan was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. This witness categorically stated that the bus came from wrong side of the road and hit the Moped and its rider. He further stated that the fractured hand and fingers of Amanullah Khan are not property functioning and he could not undertake any job for about 8-9 months. He further stated that Amanullah Khan was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. He was cross-examined but nothing could be ellucited from the statement of this witness. 15. D.W. 1 Murtaza Khan driver of the bus made statement on oath before the Tribunal that by seeing Moped riders, he took his bus towards Kachcha portion of the road but since the Moped riders had lost the balance and fell down on the road.This witness also stated that he brought the bus to halt and there was no impact with his bus. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that in relation to this accident, a charge-sheet has been filed against him and a criminal case is pending before the Court of Sagwara. This witness stated that he went to police station and lodged the report. He did not take the injured to the hospital because he apprehend the assault by the public, therefore, he ran away. 16. In the instant case, there is a specific pleadings and evidence of the claimant with regard to rash and negligency in driving the offending bus. A.W. 1 Amanullah Khan is an injured eye witness of the occurrence and from his statement, it is fully established that while he was proceeding on his Moped along with Surendra Kumar (pillion rider), a bus owned by the Corporation came from opposite direction being driven with a great speed rashly and negligently hit the Moped. This further finds support from the statement of A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar, who is an independent witness of the occurrence. The presence of A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar on the spot has not been disputed as he also sustained injuries on his person in the same accident. Not only this, he promptly lodged the F.I.R. (Ex. 1) at the police station, Sagwara wherein he has specifically mentioned that at 7.30 P.M. while they were proceeding from Panchwati Bus-stand towards colony a bus No. MKS-8092 came from opposite direction which was driven with a great speed and hit the Moped resulting thereby that he and Moped rider both fell down and sustained injuries. 1) at the police station, Sagwara wherein he has specifically mentioned that at 7.30 P.M. while they were proceeding from Panchwati Bus-stand towards colony a bus No. MKS-8092 came from opposite direction which was driven with a great speed and hit the Moped resulting thereby that he and Moped rider both fell down and sustained injuries. It was further mentioned that the bus was driven by D.W. 1 Murtaza Khan rashly and negligently with a great speed. During investigation, site inspection Note and site Map (Ex. 2) was prepared by the police on the spot. From perusal of this document, it reveals that the bus was on wrong side. In the instant case, A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar is an uninterested witness who fully supports the case of the claimant. There is nothing on record to show that he was trying to help to the claimant in any manner or was not trustworthy witness. On the other hand, the accident took place at about 7.30 P.M. within friction of minutes the F.I.R. was lodged promptly by A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar at police station, Sagwara at 8.00 P.M. narrating the occurrence in detail and, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly relied on the testimony of A.W. 1 Amanullah Khan and A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar which further finds corroboration with the documents Ex.s. 1 and 2. 17. The Corporation produced D.W. 1 Murtaza Khan driver of the offending Bus before the Tribunal who is its employee and is interested witness and, therefore, the evidence of A.W. 1 and A.W. 2 need to be preferred. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no substance in the contention raised by Mr. B. S. Bhati and accordingly, the findings on issue No. 1 is affirmed. Moreso, from perusal of the record, it reveals that the Tribunal decided two claim petitions and recorded a categorical finding on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties that the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. MKS-8092. The said finding has not been challenged in another case of common judgment and thus, the fording of rash and negligence has become final. In view of the matter, no contrary view in the matter can be taken. 19. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that amount of compensation awarded to the claimant is on higher side. In view of the matter, no contrary view in the matter can be taken. 19. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that amount of compensation awarded to the claimant is on higher side. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimant has filed cross-objection on the ground of inadequacy of amount of compensation awarded. There is a specific pleadings and evidence of the claimant with regard to the age and income as also the injuries sustained by him. From Injury Report (Ex. 3), X-ray Plate (Ex. 4) and report of Radiologist (Ex. 5), which clearly reveals that the injuries sustained by claimant have resulted in fracture distal half of shaft of radius, fracture of ulna and fracture of proximal phalanges of 4th and 5th fingers of right hand. Thus, from these documents and unrebutted evidence of the claimant, it is more than clear that the claimant sustained as many as four fractures. It is also established from unrebutted statement of A.W. 1 Amanullah Khan that soon after the accident, he was taken to hospital at Sagwara and thereafter from Sagwara Hospital to Modasa (Guj.) and further to Ahmedabad for treatment. A steel rod was inserted in his hand which is evident from Ex. 4 X-ray Plate, and Ex. 5 Report of the Radiologist. It is also established by unrebutted evidence of the claimant that the claimant remained under treatment at many places and has incurred expenses on treatment, conve-yance, lauging and boarding, attendant and nourishment of diet. He has suffered physical pain and mental agony for considerable long period during his treatment. It has specifically been stated on oath before the Tribunal that despite the treatment, the fractured bone could not be united and it resulted in non-union of bones as also resulted in impairment of the hand due to damage of veins. It has resulted in, restriction of movement of hand as such, these injuries resulted in some extent of functional disablement. It is also established that the period of about 9 months he could not take any job which he was doing before accident. Although, no treatment bills have placed on record by the claimant. However, he explained the circumstances leading to non-production of bills. It is also established that the period of about 9 months he could not take any job which he was doing before accident. Although, no treatment bills have placed on record by the claimant. However, he explained the circumstances leading to non-production of bills. It is a matter of common knowledge that when a person is seriously injured and has undergone treatment at various places in the private hospitals then he is bound to incurred expenses for treatment, doctor's fee, conveyance, attendant, and nourishment of diet etc. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for treatment expenses etc. In my considered opinion, the amount under the head 'Treatment Expenses' as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/- for loss of income during treatment. This appears to be inadequate, inasmuch, the claimant remained under treatment for considerable long period as he sustained four fractures in his right hand. He was engaged in the trading of Garments having his shop at, Sagwara. This fact has also been established from the testimony of A.W. 2 Surendra Kumar. Under these circumstances, it can reasonably be concluded that he could not undertake his routine business atleast for a period of six months and, therefore, loss of income tax Rs. 1,500/- per month to be computed by six months which comes to Rs. 9,000/-. It has also been established by unrebutted testimony of the claimant which is corroborated by medical evidence that the injury has resulted in disablement to some extent and on account of such disablement/impairment, working capacity of the claimant has substantially been reduced and, therfore, he would not be in a position to carry out his business alike he was doing prior to happening of the accident and, therefore, looking to the age of the claimant, it would be just and reasonable to award Rs. 15,000/- for loss of income in future. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 27,000/- for fractures sustained by the claimant which resulted in impairment of his hand as also for physical pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant. In my considered opinion, the amount awarded under these various heads, appear to be just and proper. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and proper to award in all a sum of Rs. In my considered opinion, the amount awarded under these various heads, appear to be just and proper. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and proper to award in all a sum of Rs. 60,000/-.This amount shall carry interest from the date of the application at the rate awarded by the Tribunal. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation has no merit and accordingly dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the respondent-claimant is allowed to the extent above.Appeal dismissed. *******