JUDGEMENT M.R. Verma, J. - 1. The plaintiff, in this suit, has claimed a decree for Rs. 10,50,000/- with future interest @ 12% per annum against the defendants on account of bodily injuries caused to him by them, consequential loss of earnings during the period of treatment, medical expenses, future loss of income and his personal dependency. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff, aged about 29 years at the time of the institution of the suit, was earlier a bodily fit person. However, on 3.101991, at village Bhabia, the dependants pelted stones on him thereby causing grievous injuries. As a result, the plaintiff suffered great pain, remained under treatment till the date of the institution of the suit and even thereafter and incurred permanent physical disability to the extent of 75% despite having spent huge amount on his medical treatment. It is claimed that because of the injuries, he has been rendered unable to properly walk and talk and his eye sight has been damaged. It has also been averred in the plaint that the incident of pelting stones on him by the defendants was reported to the police and a charge sheet was submitted against the defendants which came to be registered as Case No. 42/2 of 1992 in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal. Against this background, the plaintiff has/claimed the damages as follows: (i) On account of bodily injuries Rs. 3,00,000/- (ii) On account of loss of earning from 31.7.1994 to 31.70.1994. 1,50,000/- (iii) On account of medical expenses including transportation charges 1,00,000/- (iv) On account of future loss of income and personal dependency. 5,00,000/- 3. The defendants contested the claim and filed a written statement, wherein they raised the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable for want of affixing the requisite Court fee and that the suit is time barred. On merits, while admitting that the plaintiff is aged about 29 years, it has been averred that plaintiff is not a poor person he looks after the land of his father and works as a mason and a petty contractor and thereby earns at least Rs. 5000/- per month. On merits, while admitting that the plaintiff is aged about 29 years, it has been averred that plaintiff is not a poor person he looks after the land of his father and works as a mason and a petty contractor and thereby earns at least Rs. 5000/- per month. Causing of the injuries to the plaintiff by the defendants by pelting stones upon him has been denied and it is claimed that he is still hale and hearty and is not suffering from any bodily problem. It is also averred that the defendants have been acquitted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal of the offences of causing injuries to the plaintiff, as such case was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants because of a boundary dispute between the parties. It has also been denied that the plaintiff got himself treated by coming from Chopal to Shimla and, thus, the liability to pay the suit amount has been denied. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the defendants caused bodily injuries to the plaintiff? OPP. (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the extent of disability as suffered by the plaintiff due to the injuries as caused to him by the defendants? OPP. (3) To what amount of compensation the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants? OPP. (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable? (5) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD. (6) Whether the defendants are not liable to pay any amount of compensation? OPD. (7) Relief. 5. Parties led evidence. 6. Arguments were heard. 7. My issue wise findings are as follows: ISSUE No. 1 8. There is no serious dispute about the sustaining of the injuries by the plaintiff at the relevant time. Even DW-3 Sant Ram on the asking of the father of the plaintiff lying therein injured condition. It is evident from the statement of PW-1 that on medical examination of the plaintiff on 3.10.1991 at 10 a.m. following injuries of the duration of 3 to 8 hours were found on the person of the plaintiff. 1. Patient semi conscious not responding to verbal command irritable; 2. Pulse 68 per minute regular, occasionally irregular. . 3. B. P. 100/60 Mercury. 4. Bleeding from nose and mouth positive, no bleeding from ears. 5. Apparently all the limbs are normally moving. 6. 1. Patient semi conscious not responding to verbal command irritable; 2. Pulse 68 per minute regular, occasionally irregular. . 3. B. P. 100/60 Mercury. 4. Bleeding from nose and mouth positive, no bleeding from ears. 5. Apparently all the limbs are normally moving. 6. Right pupil is constricted and not reacting to light. 7. Left pupil not examined due to the black eye and massive oedema of left eye- lid. 8. All signs and symptoms suggestive of cerebral oddema (Head Injuries). Specific Examination: 1. Lacerated wound over the occipital area of scalp right side, two and half centimeters long and scalp thickness deep. 2. Massive oedema of left side, of face, including upper part of same side of neck. 3. Black eye with massive oedema of left eyelid. Left eye ball -could not be examined. 4. Signs and symptoms suggestive of suspected cerebral oedema." The MLC in this regard is Ex. PW-1/A. 9. The dispute, however, is as to who had caused these injuries to the plaintiff. To prove that these bodily injuries were caused to the plaintiff by the defendants the plaintiff in addition to his own statement as PW-4 has examined Shakinu Deen (PW-5) and Mohd. Rafique (PW-6). The plaintiff has stated that about six years before defendants Sohan Singh and Asha Devi started cutting grass from his Ghasni and he shouted from his house asking them why they were doing so but they did not listen. When the plaintiff went to the spot the said defendants pelted stones on him resulting in multiple injuries to him on his head, face and teeth and he fell unconscious on the spot. There is no specific suggestion in his cross-examination that the said defendants had not pelted stones on him resulting in the statement of plaintiff from which it may even be inferred that defendant Nazroo Devi also pelted stones on him. 10. PW-5 Shankinu Deen has stated that the defendants were cutting grass on the Ghasni’ of the plaintiff and he shouted to stop them but they did not listen. The plaintiff went to the spot where defendants Sohan Singh and Asha Devi pelted stones on him which resulted in multiple injuries on the head, face and teeth of the plaintiff and he fell unconscious and defendants ran away from the spot. The plaintiff went to the spot where defendants Sohan Singh and Asha Devi pelted stones on him which resulted in multiple injuries on the head, face and teeth of the plaintiff and he fell unconscious and defendants ran away from the spot. In the cross examination he has stated that when the defendants were pelting stones he and Rafique were the first to reach on the spot others came later. He has denied the suggestion that none of the defendants caused injuries to the plaintiff by pelting the stones. There is, however, nothing in the statement of this witness form which it may even be inferred that defendant No. 3 Nazroo Devi also pelted stones at the plaintiff. It has not been suggested to this witness that the defendants 1 and 3 were not present on the spot and were not cutting the grass. 11. PW-6 Mohd. Rafique has stated that about six years before in the month of Asauj at about 5 o clock plaintiff noticed the defendants cutting grass from his land and asked them to stop cutting the grass but they did not listen and thereafter the defendants started pelting stones on the plaintiff who suffered multiple injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body and fell unconscious. Thereafter, the defendants ran away. In the cross-examination, he has clarified that his son (the plaintiff) had gone to the spot to stop the defendants from cutting the grass. However, he is not aware as to what talk took place between the parties. He has further stated that the first stone was pelted by Asha Devi followed by Sohan Singh. In the cross-examination, it has not been suggested to the witness specifically that the defendants did not pelt stones on the plaintiff nor there is any suggestion that the defendants were not present on the spot and were not cutting grass. 12. The learned counsel for the defendants had contended that statements of PW-5 and PW-6 are wholly unreliable as they had contradicted their earlier statements regarding the occurrence respectively Ext. PW-5/DX and Ext. PW-6/DX-1 made in the court of the Judicial Magistrate and thus, their statements cannot be believed. The result, according to the learned counsel, thus, is that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof of this issue. 13. PW-5/DX and Ext. PW-6/DX-1 made in the court of the Judicial Magistrate and thus, their statements cannot be believed. The result, according to the learned counsel, thus, is that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof of this issue. 13. Be it stated that previous statement made by a witness can be used only for the purpose of contradicting him under Section 145 of the Evidence Act with view to challenge his veracity and such statement is not a substitute for his evidence. Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides for cross-examination a witness as to his previous statement. However, whenever the witness is intended to be contradicted with the previous statement, his attention has to be called to those parts of the statement which are to be used for contradicting him. 14. Section 155 of the Evidence Act, no doubt, provides for impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of his former statement inconsistent with any part of his evidence but the mode of proof of such former statement is provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Thus, Section 155 is controlled by Section 145 of the Evidence Act and is not independent of it. Therefore, a previous statement has to be used for contradicting the witness in the manner provided under Section 145 supra. It follows that when a witness is to be contradicted with his previous statement which is intended to be used to contradict him thereby affording him an opportunity to explain the discrepancy in the former statement and his evidence. Failure to do so will disentitle the party cross-examining him from claiming the benefit of the contradiction. 15. In the case in hand PW-6 has not been confronted with any thing inconsistent in his former statement Ext. PW-6/DX-1. Therefore, the defendants cannot take any benefit of any inconsistency in statement Ext. PW-6/DX-1. No specific portion containing inconsistent statement in statement Ext. PW-5/DX has been put to PW-5 also to bring out the inconsistency in that statement. On his statement that "I remember that I had clearly stated that defendants 1 and 3 had pelted stones on the plaintiff, he was shown Ext. PW-6/DX and the Court observed that it was not so mentioned therein. He was never asked that he had made any different / contradictory statement vide Ext. PW-5/DX. On his statement that "I remember that I had clearly stated that defendants 1 and 3 had pelted stones on the plaintiff, he was shown Ext. PW-6/DX and the Court observed that it was not so mentioned therein. He was never asked that he had made any different / contradictory statement vide Ext. PW-5/DX. Thus, he had also not been confronted with any inconsistent portion of his statement Ext. PW-5/DX. Thus the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 cannot be doubted on the strength of Ext. of Ext. PW-5/DX and Ext. PW-6/DXZ. 16. The statements of PW-5 and PW-6,as noticed above, have thus fully corroborated the statement of the plaintiff regarding causing of the injuries to him by defendants Sohan Singh and Asha Devi. However, there is no consistent and reliable evidence, which may show that Nazroo Devi had also pelted the stones and thus caused injuries to the plaintiff. 17. Even Sant Ram(PW-3), who has been examined by the defendants, lend support to the version of the plaintiff. He has stated that he was working in his maize fields when Mohd. Rafique (father of the plaintiff) came to him and told him that his son had been injured and that thereafter he went to the spot where the plaintiff was lying injured. In the cross-examination he has admitted that Mohd. Rafique (PW-5) had informed him that the plaintiff was hit with stones by Sohan Singh and his wife (defendant Asha Devi). He has further stated that when he saw the plaintiff he was vomiting blood, but he did not notice any injury on his head. Be it stated that the said disclosure by PW-6 to PW-3 immediately after the occurrence that his son, the plaintiff, was hit with stones by defendants Sohan Singh and Asha Devi is a relevant and material piece of evidence and this lends, credibility to the version of the plaintiff. 18. In view of the evidence, as discussed hereinabove, the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden of proving that the aforesaid injuries, sustained by him were caused to him by defendants Sohan Singh and Asha Devi. 19. In rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence of the Plaintiff, the defendants examined defendant Nazroo Devi (PW-4). Defendant Asha Devi (PW-5) and defendant Sohan Singh (DW-6) and also relied on the documentary evidence consisting of the copy of judgment Exts. (DX and DY\ 20. 19. In rebuttal of the aforesaid evidence of the Plaintiff, the defendants examined defendant Nazroo Devi (PW-4). Defendant Asha Devi (PW-5) and defendant Sohan Singh (DW-6) and also relied on the documentary evidence consisting of the copy of judgment Exts. (DX and DY\ 20. DW-4 defendant Nazroo has denied he involvement in the pelting of the stones and any quarts having taken place in her presence. She has stated that she is not aware whether the other two defendants had pelted stones on the plaintiff or not. Thus, he statement is of no help to the other two defendants, namely, Sohan Singh and Asha Devi. Her statement serves only the purpose and as already seen there is virtually no evidence led by the plaintiff showing that she was involved in the pelting of the stones. 21. DW-5 Asha Devi in her statement has denied having any quarrel with the plaintiff at any time or having pelted stone on him. She has further stated that a criminal case had been registered against her in which she was acquitted by the trial Court as well as by the High Court. In the cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that the defendants had caused injuries to the plaintiff. 22. DW-6 Sohan Singh has also stated that he had no quarrel with the plaintiff and he did not give any beatings or pelted any stone on him. He has further stated that a criminal case was registered by the plaintiff but the defendants were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate and the High Court. 23. Copy Ext. DX is of the judgment dated 30.6.1993 admittedly rendered by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal in case No. 42/2 of 1992 in which the defendants were prosecuted for having caused injuries to the plaintiff and were finally acquitted. Ext. DY is the copy of judgment dated 12.8.1997 of this Court whereby the appeal of the State against the aforesaid acquittal was Dismissed. 24. The oral evidence led by the defendants as discussed above consists of the statements of the defendants and no independent witness has been examined by them to corroborate their version. They have admitted that they were prosecuted for having caused the injuries to the plaintiff but they claim that the charge against them was not proved and they were acquitted vide judgment. Ext. They have admitted that they were prosecuted for having caused the injuries to the plaintiff but they claim that the charge against them was not proved and they were acquitted vide judgment. Ext. DX of the trial Magistrate and appeal against this acquittal was dismissed vide judgment Ext. DY. Thus, the question arises as to whether the said judgments can be read in evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. 25. Section 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act deal with relevancy oft judgments, orders and decrees of the Courts and are as such declared! relevant to the extent indicated therein. If the judgment order and1 decree do not fall within one or the other of those Sections, they will be irrelevant. None of these Sections of any other provision of law declares a finding of fact recorded by a Criminal Court as" relevant evidence in a Civil Suit before a Civil Court except to prove whether the accused in the case was acquitted or convicted. However, such A judgment cannot be relied upon as a conclusion as to whether the accused person therein had not committed the act(s) complained against. The Civil Court will have to come to its own conclusion as to the commission or non-commission of the act giving rise to the claim in the suit, on the basis of evidence led by the parties before it i independently of the factual conclusion arrived at by the criminal court. 26. In Anil Behari Ghosh vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others, AIR1955 SC 566) while dealing with the question of admissibility of judgment of a Criminal Court in civil matter, the Honble Apex Court held as under: "(15)........The Courts below have referred to good and reliable evidence in support of the finding that Girish was the nearest reversioner to the estate of the testator. If the will is a valid and genuine will, there is intestacy in respect of the interest created in favour of Charu, if he was the murder of the testator. On this question the Courts below have assumed on the basis of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High court in the session trial that Charu was the murderer. On this question the Courts below have assumed on the basis of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High court in the session trial that Charu was the murderer. Though that judgment is relevant only to show that there was a trial resulting in the conviction and sentence of Charu to transportation for life, it is not evidence of the fact that Charu was the murderer. That question has to be decided on evidence.............." 27. In view of the above position in law, the judgments Ext. DX and Ext. DY do not either by themselves or along with the statements of the defendants rebut the evidence of the plaintiff who himself was not examined in the criminal case which was one of the grounds leading to the acquittal of the defendants. 28. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that the defendants No. 1 and 3 caused injuries to him as specified in para 8 supra. This issue is accordingly held partly in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No? 1 and 3. Issue No. 2. 29. since issue No. 1 has been held in favour of the plaintiff partly, therefore, this issue arises for decision. 30. According to the plaintiff, he has been permanently disabled physically to do any work. To prove his case, in addition to his statement as PW-4 he has relied on the statements of Dr. R. C. Thakur (PW-2), Dr. B. K. Goel (PW-3) and Mohd. Rafique (PW-6) and the disability certificate Ext. PW-2/A. 31. As per the certificate Ext. PW-2/A, the plaintiff was found to be physically disabled to the extent of 75% and such disability was permanent. This certificate is dated 4.2.1994 and has been issued by a medical Board consisting of Dr. D. S. Puri, Prof. B. K. Goel (( PW-3), Dr. Ravi Sharma and Dr. R, C. Thakur (PW-2). PW-2 has stated that the disability certified vide Ext. PW-2/A at 75% was because of the following: (i) Regarding epilepsy; (ii) Left side facial palsy including problem also; and (iii) Left side hemipersesis. D. S. Puri, Prof. B. K. Goel (( PW-3), Dr. Ravi Sharma and Dr. R, C. Thakur (PW-2). PW-2 has stated that the disability certified vide Ext. PW-2/A at 75% was because of the following: (i) Regarding epilepsy; (ii) Left side facial palsy including problem also; and (iii) Left side hemipersesis. Though he has stated that on examination of the plaintiff his disability was assessed at 75% by the Board and the aforesaid certificate was issued but in his cross-examination he has admitted that so far as he is concerned, he was one of the members of the Board and other members of Medical Board would be in a position to explain the disability and he was not in a position to give the percentage of disability on each of the aforesaid points. He has further stated that the disability certified as 75% does not reflect the loss of working capacity or earning capacity of the plaintiff and a person having such disability, can have children and can enjoy his normal sexual life. Thus, the statement of this witness does not clarify and prove the three aforesaid aspects of the disability in a manner to show its nexus with the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. 32. PW-3 Dr. B.K. Goel has stated that he was one of the members of the Board constituted for the purpose of finding the disability of the< plaintiff and the certificate issued by such Board is Ext. PW-2/A which was prepared after thorough investigating in respect of disability and it is signed by him also. In the cross-examination, he has stated that on examination of the plaintiff and the record it was found that he was having poor vision in the left eye. He has further stated that it is very difficult to say the reason for it but there was a history of head injury. However, it could be otherwise also. The disability, according to him, due to loss of vision of one eye was 30%. The witness has not specifically stated that 30% disability of vision was because of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff but has stated that there was history of head injury. Therefore, the statement of this witness also does not prove that the disability regarding vision was due to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff because of the pelting of stones on him by defendants 1 and 3. 33. Therefore, the statement of this witness also does not prove that the disability regarding vision was due to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff because of the pelting of stones on him by defendants 1 and 3. 33. PW-2 Dr. R.C. Thakur has stated that he treated the plaintiff who was admitted in I.G.M.C. Hospital on 4 10.1991 with the history of the head injury having been sustained by him on 3-10-1991. He was further stated that conservative treatment was given to the plaintiff till 8-10-1991 when he was referred to P.G.I Chandigarh fen, C.T. Scan his further version is that on being back from P.G.I. The plaintiff was kept under observation from 14-10-1991 to 21.101991 when he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh for CT Scan. His further version is that on being referred back from P.G.I, the plaintiff was kept under observation from 14.10.1991 to 21.10.1991 when he was discharged after giving him conservative treatment. The plaintiff, however, was again admitted in the Eye Department of I.G.M.C. and Hospital at Shimla on 11.11.1991 with the complaint that he was unable to close his left eye for which he was given the treatment in the hospital and was discharged on 19.11.1991 when it was found he had improved. The statement of this witness supports the plaintiff only to the extent of injuries sustained and the treatment thereof, but not about any permanent disability as certified vide Ext. PW-2/A is as a result of the injuries caused to the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 3. 34. The plaintiff (PW-4) himself has not supported the contents of Ext. PW-2/A on material particulars. He has stated that "I received injuries in my head, nose, where after my hearing aid has stopped. Some teeth were also broken. My face has tilled..... I have been rendered totally useless because of the aforesaid injuries. I cannot walk. I cannot stand nor can I .sleep properly. If I want to go somewhere I cannot go without the help of someone." He has not stated that now he has weak eyesight or is suffering from epilepsy because of the injuries. There is nothing in the medical evidence about loss of hearing capacity of teeth of the plaintiff, nor there" is anything about disability to stand and walk. 35. There is nothing in the medical evidence about loss of hearing capacity of teeth of the plaintiff, nor there" is anything about disability to stand and walk. 35. PW-2 has stated that the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital after treatment of the bodily injuries when he had improved vide Ex. PW-2/B. Similarly, he was discharged after having been treated for eye problem after he had shown improvement vide Ex. PW-2/C. For epilepsy, he was treated in may 1993 and was discharged disease was controlled. Thus, he was admitted and treated for epilepsy after considerable time of his having sustained the injuries. According to PW-2, regarding subsequent treatment of the plaintiff, OPD slips are Ex. PW-2/E give the details of the initial examinations. 36. At least two of such slips show past history of fall and cannot be said to be connected with the bodily injuries caused to the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 3. 37. Keeping in view above evidence, it is not proved that the plaintiff suffered any permanent disability because of the injuries caused to him by defendants 1 and 3. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Issue Nos. 3 and 6. 38. Since both these issues are inter connected, therefore, are taken up together. In view of the findings on issue No. 2, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for the alleged permanent disability and future loss of income as a consequence thereof. However, in view of the findings on issue No. 1, plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for loss of income during the period of the bodily injuries caused to him by defendants 1 and 3, pain and sufferings and medical expenses, but defendant No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation of the plaintiff. 39. According to PW-1, plaintiff was brought to him in injured condition on 3.10.1991, when he examined and referred him to I.G.M.C., Shimla on 4-10-1991. PW-2 has stated that the plaintiff was admitted in I.G.M.C, Shimla on 4-10-1991 with the history of head injury sustained on 3.10.1991 and remained so admitted till 8.10.1991 when he was referred to P.G.I., Chandigarh where he was treated from 8-10-1991 to 13-10-1991 and was then sent back to I.G.M.C. Shimla where he was admitted on 14-10-1991 and was given conservative treatment and was discharged on 21-10-1991. He was again admitted in I.G.M.C, on 11-11-1991 because he was unable to close his left eye which injury was sustained by him vide MLC Ex. PW-1/A). He was discharged because he was again admitted in I.G.M.C. on 11-11-1991 because he was unable to close his left eye (on which injury was sustained by him Vide MLC Ex. PW-1/A). He was discharged because of improvement on 19-11-1991. Keeping in view this period when the plaintiff remained admitted for treatment, the extent and nature of the injuries caused to him by defendants 1 and 3, the plaintiff must have j been rendered incapable of attending to his vocation for a period of at | least 4 months. 40. In the plaint, the plaintiff has not stated about his monthly income before sustaining the injuries. In the statement, he has stated that he used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. So is stated by his father (PW-6). These statements cannot be believed as true for want of corroboration by any independent evidence and for want of pleadings in this regard. It is more so in view of the averments in the plaint that plaintiff is a poor man, which a person having monthly income of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be. According to the plaintiff and PW-6, the plaintiff was a muleteer. It is not disputed even by the DWs. On the contrary, Joban Dass (DW-1) has admitted that the plaintiff used tp work as a muleteer and agriculturist and was having three mules. So is stated by Sohan Singh (DW-6), though, according to him, plaintiff had two mules and in addition to mule driving and agricultural work, the plaintiff does the work of loading and unloading of resin. It was suggested to both these DWs that income of the plaintiff, at the relevant time, was more than Rs. 5,000/- per month and they could not deny it. Thus, keeping in view the sources of income of the plaintiff and inability to dispute his monthly income of Rs. 5000/- as aforesaid and admission in the written statement that monthly income of the plaintiff was at least Rs. 5,000/-, it can be safely said that monthly income of the plaintiff, at the material time, was Rs. 5000/-. 42. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is a resident of a remote part of Himachal Pradesh Tehsil Chopal. 5000/- as aforesaid and admission in the written statement that monthly income of the plaintiff was at least Rs. 5,000/-, it can be safely said that monthly income of the plaintiff, at the material time, was Rs. 5000/-. 42. There is no dispute that the plaintiff is a resident of a remote part of Himachal Pradesh Tehsil Chopal. In view of the statements PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 and admission by defendant Asha Devi (DW-5), the plaintiff was treated for the injuries sustained by him at Nerwa, then at I.G.M.C, Shimla twice. In view of the unreabutted statement of his father (PW-6), he had removed the plaintiff to aforesaid places for treatment on different dates. Thus, he served as attendant of the plaintiff throughout his treatment for the injuries. There is, however, no direct and specific evidence Regarding expenditure incurred on the treatment of the plaintiff for the injuries sustained by him but assessment of compensation in the cases as in hand involves some element of guess work. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, the places to which the plaintiff had to be removed for treatment, I am of the view that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for expenses incurred on medical treatment, / transportation etc. will be a fair and reasonable. 43. To assess compensation for pain and suffering is again a matter of guess and assessment thereof cannot be arrived at by accurate method. In view of the established facts already stated heretofore, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will, in my opinion, be a fair compensation on this account. 44. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from defendants 1 and 3. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and issue No. 6 is decided in favour of defendant No. 2 but against defendants 1 and 3. Issue No. 4. 45. In view of the findings on issue No. 1 above, the suit is held maintainable. This issue is accordingly held in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 5. 46. The bodily injuries were caused by defendants 1 and 3 to the plaintiff on 3.10.1991 and this suit had been filed on 12.9.1994, i.e. within three years of the sustaining of the injuries. The suit thus having been filed within limitation cannot be said time barred. This issue is accordingly held in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 5. 46. The bodily injuries were caused by defendants 1 and 3 to the plaintiff on 3.10.1991 and this suit had been filed on 12.9.1994, i.e. within three years of the sustaining of the injuries. The suit thus having been filed within limitation cannot be said time barred. This issue is accordingly held against the defendants. Issue No. 7 (Relief) 47. In view of the given above, a decree for Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation thereof, is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 and 3 jointly and severally. Since legal aid has been provided to the plaintiff, therefore there is no order as to costs.