Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been directed against the award dated 21-12-1989 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisen in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33/1984. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on 9-1-1984 at about 12. 30 p. m. claimant Mayank Pandey was going on Scooter as a pillion driver from Bhopal to Obedullaganj. At Village Bisnekheda truck bearing registration No. MPZ 7443 owned by appellant No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 came from the opposite side and collided with scooter bearing registration No. MBG 1154 on which the claimant was sitting as pillion rider and thereafter also dashed another scooter bearing registration No. MBC 1553. The claimant sustained various injuries. He was taken to Hamidia Hospital where he was operated on 10-1-1984. He sustained fracture in his right hand and right leg. He was operated thrice. Kneeling and bone drafting was done and plaster was put. The claimant claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him under various heads totaling to Rs. 5,97,000/ -. ( 3. ) THE appellants submitted their written statement and denied the negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2 and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter and accordingly the appellants prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence and vide impugned award held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the truck driver and allowed the application in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 45,500/- to the claimant. ( 5. ) HEARD Ms. Tanu Tandon, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. ( 6. ) MS. Tanu Tandon, learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal holding the appellants driver guilty of rash and negligent driving is contrary to the evidence on record. It has also been argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and unjust looking to the evidence on record and as such the same deserves to be set aside. It has also been argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and unjust looking to the evidence on record and as such the same deserves to be set aside. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that from the evidence on record, the finding about negligence of truck driver being inevitable the Tribunal has committed no error in holding the truck driver negligent. As regards quantum of compensation the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the compensation awarded being just and proper the impugned award need not be interfered with. ( 7. ) RAVINDER Singh (A. W. 1) who was eye-witness to the incident has stated that on 9-1-1984 when he was going on scooter near Village Bisnekheda a truck of Public Health Engineering Department came at an excessive speed from the opposite side, the speed of the truck must be 80 kms/hour. The way in which it was coming at an excessive speed the driver must have lost his control on steering. The aforesaid truck came to wrong side and dashed his scooter as a result of which he fell down and got unconscious. Dhan Singh (A. W. 2) has also stated that he was going by his Tractor to Obedullaganj and he saw a truck coming from Obedullaganj in a very high speed and dashed the scooter which was going on its correct side. Pramod Chug (A. W. 4) has also corroborated the fact that the truck was at the excessive speed and dashed the scooter. Mayank (A. W. 5) has also stated in his evidence that the truck was coming from the opposite side and the driver lost control and by coming to wrong side it dashed to the scooter. Nothing has been brought in cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve them. Jamna Prasad (N. W. 1) in his evidence has not stated so as to hold the scooterist negligent for causing the accident. On the other hand Jamna Prasad (N. W. 1) has stated that because of some mechanical failure in the truck the truck turned to right side, i. e. , drivers side causing dash to the scooter coming from opposite side. Ramdas (N. W. 2) has admitted that all of a sudden steering of the truck turned towards right resulting into accident. Ramdas (N. W. 2) has admitted that all of a sudden steering of the truck turned towards right resulting into accident. On the basis of the above evidence the Claims Tribunal held the Driver of the appellants negligent in driving the truck. I find that this finding of the Tribunal is based on the sound appreciation of evidence. From the overwhelming evidence it is established that the driver of the offending truck was driving the truck negligently and at excessive speed and, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the compensation. ( 8. ) COMING to the next question with regards to the quantum of compensation, I find that the claimant has sustained fracture of his right hand and right leg. He was thrice operated and the disability assessed and proved by the evidence of Dr. Nirbhay Shrivastava (A. W. 1) to be 60%. The claimant was hospitalised for about 3 months and his hand and leg were in plaster for about 6 to 7 months. He stated that he still feels difficulty in walking and has to continue the physiotherapy. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000/- in all under various heads like medical expenses, physical and mental agony, for permanent disablement etc. In my considered opinion the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and can not be said to be excessive. ( 9. ) APPEAL is dismissed but with no order as to costs.