BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sohagpur in Claim case No. 35 of 1999 dated 20. 7. 2001. ( 2 ) ACCIDENT took place on 3. 12. 1998 when the truck No. MP 05-F 0100 driven rashly and negligently hit jeep No. MP 05-F 3345 resulting in fracture of right elbow and,fifth metacarpal bone. The claimant was driver in the jeep owned by Prembai, wife of Fundilal and insured with Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , while Mahesh Patel is the driver of truck owned by Rajkumar and insured with National Insurance Coltd. Compensation of Rs. 10,64,000 is claimed. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have filed separate written statements in this case. It is alleged that the jeep was being driven by the driver under intoxication, therefore, he was liable for causing accident. Insurance company alleges that drivers of both the vehicles did not possess valid driving licence to drive the vehicles. Claim should have been intiated under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Claims Tribunal found that both the vehicles contributed to the accident equally, therefore, compensation of Rs. 94,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum has been made payable by the owners and drivers of the two vehicles jointly and severally, the insurance company with which the vehicles were insured. ( 4 ) FIRST question for determination is whether finding recorded by the Claims tribunal that both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident is sustainable on evidence in the case. Mr. A. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimant, contends that there is no evidence to show that the jeep was responsible for the accident. It was parked on the roadside, occupants were out to answer the call of nature. The driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently and hit the jeep resulting in injuries to the claimant and damage to the vehicle. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the evidence of claimant on this point is hot satisfactory. The jeep was being driven by the driver under intoxication. It was collision between the two moving vehicles. Kamlesh Kumar lodged first information report in which he did not say that the jeep was stationary. Kamlesh kumar has not been examined by the claimant in this case. The jeep was being driven by the driver under intoxication. It was collision between the two moving vehicles. Kamlesh Kumar lodged first information report in which he did not say that the jeep was stationary. Kamlesh kumar has not been examined by the claimant in this case. ( 5 ) GIVING consideration to the matter in the context of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the jeep was stationary at the time of accident, two occupants of which were out for answering the call of nature while driver was sitting there, therefore, he suffered injuries. Statement of Kamlesh Kumar in the first information report that he also suffered injuries does not appear to be correct. Had he suffered injuries in the accident due to the fault of the offending truck, what prevented him from filing the claim petition seeking compensation. It seems, he did not suffer any injury in the accident because he was out of the jeep with Santosh for answering the call of nature, as stated by the claimant, supported by Santosh Kumar. Moreover, the respondents have not led evidence in support of their defence that the jeep was moving and accident was caused by the driver under intoxication. They did not confront the claimant with the contents of the first information report nor produced kamlesh Kumar as witness in the case, in case he was not produced by the claimant. Therefore, it is not difficult to hold that the accident was caused by the truck and the claimant was not in any way liable for that. The finding to the contrary recorded by the claims Tribunal is set aside. ( 6 ) NEXT question is determination of compensation. The claimant was driver in the jeep of Prembai. He states that he was receiving salary of Rs. 3,000 per month. Prembai also states that she was paying rs. 3,000 per month to the claimant but she has not produced any record to justify this statement. Normal salary of private jeep drivers during 1998 is stated to be rs. 2,000 per month. Therefore, it is appropriate to assess the compensation on this amount. The claimant suffered fractures of right elbow. After operation, 14 rods have been inserted. Stiffness in the elbow is 100 per cent as per Dr. S. Nagraj, Exh. Normal salary of private jeep drivers during 1998 is stated to be rs. 2,000 per month. Therefore, it is appropriate to assess the compensation on this amount. The claimant suffered fractures of right elbow. After operation, 14 rods have been inserted. Stiffness in the elbow is 100 per cent as per Dr. S. Nagraj, Exh. A-60, which means the claimant will not be in a position to work as driver for the rest of his life since use of right arm is essential for doing so. At the time of accident, he was 24 years old. Therefore, he can be awarded compensation for loss of income for some years, pain and suffering, transport, special diet, attendant and medical expenses. Instead of working out compensation head-wise, a lump sum compensation of rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) is awarded to the claimant. The owner and driver of truck are jointly and severally liable for payment of the same, actually payable by national Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the truck was insured. Enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment, to be made within two months. ( 7 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .