Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. In this appeal, challenge is to award dated 9.10.1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dismissing the petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the claimant. 2. Claimant, C.J. Singh, filed petition under Section 110-A of the Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, averring therein that on 12.1.1983 at about 1 P.M. he along with Harvinder Singh was going on motor-cycle bearing registration No. CHG-82 from Sector 21 scooter market towards Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. The said motor cycle was being driven by Harvinder Singh and he (claimant) was on the pillion seat. According to the claimant, when they reached near T junction near the turning of Dev Samai College, a car bearing registration No. CHG-4641 being driven by respondent No. 1 came at a fast speed and hit against the motor cycle, as a result of which he fell down from the pillion of the motor cycle and sustained injuries, resulting in dislocation of knee, fracture of right thigh etc. As per claimant, he remained admitted in P.G.I. Chandigarh from 12.1.1983 to 2.2.1983 and suffered permanent disability. In the claim petition, he claimed compensation of Rs. three lacs under different heads. 3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondent No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement alleging therein that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and driver and the insurance company of the motor cycle. He alleged that the accident took place due to fault of the driver of motor cycle and that he was driving the same without any licence. He further alleged that there were three persons on the motor cycle and the motor cyclist instead of taking turn to the correct side, took wrong turn to avoid obstructions which were there on the left side of round about and resultantly hit his car which was going a slow speed on its correct side. He stated that he himself had taken the injured to hospital in his car and later on police cancelled the case which had been reported to it, on finding that the motor-cyclist was at fault. Respondent No. 2, namely, insurance company, in its written statement filed, alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant. He stated that he himself had taken the injured to hospital in his car and later on police cancelled the case which had been reported to it, on finding that the motor-cyclist was at fault. Respondent No. 2, namely, insurance company, in its written statement filed, alleged that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant. The alleged injuries and the amount spent on the treatment has been denied. The amount claimed is stated to have been exaggerated and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. Claimant produced PW1, Parminder Singh, who deposed that the accident took place just in front of his house. Harvinder Singh appeared as PW2 and deposed in regard to the manner in which the accident took place. P/W3 K.N. Kataria, Accounts Officer of M/s Shivalik Savings and General Investments Limited, Chandigarh, i.e. the company run by the claimant, stated in regard to the salary paid to the claimant from February to December, 1983 and in this regard proved Exhibits P1 to P12, PW-4 Dr. Jaswant Singh Sodhi proved his reports Exhibits P-3 and P-4 for having done x-ray of the claimant. PW-5 Dr. J.Rai deposed in regard to the injuries on the person of claimant C.J. Singh. Claimant C.J. Singh appeared himself as PW-6. Randhir Singh, Taxi driver, appeared as PW-7. Kailash Chander, Clerk, General Hospital, Chandigarh appeared as PW8 and Dr. S.S. Cheema, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh appeared as PW-9 and thereafter, evidence on behalf of the claimant was closed. 5. Respondent No. 1 appeared as RW-1 and deposed that he was driving the car at a slow speed and that the accident took place entirely due to negligence of the motor-cyclist and produced copy of the driving licence, Exhibit R-1 and insurance policy Exhibit R-2 and thereafter, evidence on his behalf was closed. 6. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced before it, dismissed the claim petition. This is how the present appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 8. The accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the motor cyclist was coming from the side of scooter market while the car driver was going towards scooter market. They were opposite to each other. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 8. The accident is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the motor cyclist was coming from the side of scooter market while the car driver was going towards scooter market. They were opposite to each other. It is further not in dispute that there was a T-junction near the place of accident and also existed a divider. The car was negotiating turn for going to scooter market admittedly from its correct side. Respondent No. l, Gur Rattan Pal Singh, driver of the car, when appeared as RW-1, gave the version that the motor cyclist came towards the right side of divider leaving their correct left side as water had accumulated there, besides a calf on that side as a result of which, the motor cycle hit the car and he was not negligent. His version is not wholly correct for variety of reasons. Firstly, there is no such plea taken by him in the written statement that there was water as well as calf on the other side of the divider which compelled the motor-cyclist to come towards wrong side of the divider. Secondly, he was admittedly negotiating a turn and at that point of time, he was required to be very cautious in relation to the speed and other traffic. He has admitted in cross-examination that he came to know about the accident from the noise of impact. This shows that while negotiating turn he was unmindful of the traffic coming from the opposite direction. He has admitted his writing, Exhibit PA, wherein he has come forward with another story that the accident had taken place in order to save a child and that there was no fault of any body as both drivers were very cautious in driving their respective vehicles and the accident was due to unavoidable circumstances. He in this way, is taking contradictory stands. On the other hand, it is evident from the statements of PW-1 Parminder Singh, PW-2 Harvinder Singh and PW-6, C.J. Singh, the injured pillion rider, that as a matter of fact the speed of the car was excessive and the car driver could not control it when he had negotiated the said turn. On the other hand, it is evident from the statements of PW-1 Parminder Singh, PW-2 Harvinder Singh and PW-6, C.J. Singh, the injured pillion rider, that as a matter of fact the speed of the car was excessive and the car driver could not control it when he had negotiated the said turn. The cross-examination of PW-2 Harvinder Singh suggests that when the car had negotiated the turn, the curve was near the end of the Iceland (divider as stated by RW-1 Gur Rattan Pal Singh). This shows that when the car had negotiated the turn, it was not on the extreme left side of the road and rather came in between and at the same time had the motor cyclist also come on the extreme left side of the road the accident would not have taken place. This lapse leads to the conclusion that the motor cycle was also more towards the right side than on their left hand side, and in this way have also contributed to negligence resulting in the said accident. Responsibility had equally fallen on the motor cyclist to be on the extreme left side when they had noticed that car after negotiating turn more on the right side touching the ice land/divider. No doubt as per respondent No. l driver of the car, there were three persons on the motor cycle but he could not prove the same by any cogent evidence. Even otherwise, it is not his case that on account of three persons on the motor cycle, they had lost any balance which led to the collision. Therefore, totality of the circumstances on record suggest that there was some amount of negligence on the part of motor cyclist as well. Accordingly, negligence of the car driver and the motor cyclist is apportioned 70:30. 9. Claimant C.J. Singh had a fracture of right thigh bone in the middle. He remained admitted in PGI from 14.1.1983 to 2.2.1983. During this period he was operated on 26.1.1983. The statement of Dr Jaswant Rai suggests that the fracture was fixed with«a steel nail. The fracture though was united but there was 1 inch shortening in the right leg due to which he complained of mild pain in the right hip. The shortening of limb by 2-1/2 cms is also apparent from disability certificate Exhibit PW-8/1. The statement of Dr Jaswant Rai suggests that the fracture was fixed with«a steel nail. The fracture though was united but there was 1 inch shortening in the right leg due to which he complained of mild pain in the right hip. The shortening of limb by 2-1/2 cms is also apparent from disability certificate Exhibit PW-8/1. Every disability does not affect the earning capacity of a person unless it is proved otherwise. PW-6 C.J. Singh though stated that he could not run his business and there was a loss and also could not get his salary for four months but the same is without any proof. Rather PW-3 K.N. Kataria, Accounts Officer of the company run by the claimant, has stated that the claimant was paid salary from February to December, 1983. He did not say anywhere that there occurred any loss to the company on account of claimants disability. Therefore, on account of shortening of the leg, it cannot be said that the claimant suffered any business loss or earning. His fracture has now been united as evident from the statement of PW-5 Dr. J. Rai and also Exhibits P-3 and P-4 proved by PW-4, Dr. J.S. Sodhi. PW-5 Dr. J.Rai in cross-examination has rather opined that though the claimant cannot run efficiently but certainly can work, squat and also can play badminton. From this, an inference can be drawn that the said shortening of leg by 1 inch does not come in the way of his daily pursuits. In this back-drop of the facts, Rs. 40,000/- so assessed by the Tribunal on account of mental agony and pain and suffering is appropriate and needs no interference. Claimant has stated that Rs. 20,000/- was spent on medicines and Rs. 12,000/- on conveyance. There are no cash memos or bills on the file. The claimant had mainly taken treatment from the PGI Chandigarh which is a government institution and the expenses there are much low as compared to a private hospital. However, since he had also taken up follow up treatment after discharge, in my view the amount of Rs. 10,000/- so granted by the Tribunal on account of treatment and medicines is not meager and is accordingly held to be appropriate. PW-7 Randhir Singh, Taxi driver, has stated that he had charged Rs. 9,000-10,000/- for having taken the claimant for treatment. 10,000/- so granted by the Tribunal on account of treatment and medicines is not meager and is accordingly held to be appropriate. PW-7 Randhir Singh, Taxi driver, has stated that he had charged Rs. 9,000-10,000/- for having taken the claimant for treatment. However, admittedly there is no entry in the log book register though he has stated that receipts were given to the claimant but for the reasons best known to the claimant the same too have not been produced on record. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- granted by the Tribunal under this head is already on the liberal side and calls for no interference. Thus, the compensation so assessed by the Tribunal is adequate. 10. The driver, owner and the insurer of the motor cycle have not been made party in this case. Liability of the driver-owner and insurer of the car has been assessed as 70 per cent. Therefore, claimant is entitled to have compensation only to the extent of their liability, which comes to Rs. 38,500/-. 11. Respondent No. 1, Gur Rattan Pal Singh, had tendered his driving licence, Exhibit R-1, shown to be valid upto 21.2.1984. The insurance policy, Exhibit R-2, shows that the car was insured from 9.6.1982 to 18.6.1983, covering the date of accident. Therefore, the amount of compensation is payable by the insurance company and respondent No 1 jointly and severally. 12. Coming to the rate of interest, previously it used to be 12 per cent, however, in the recent years the bank rates been considerably reduced and the rate of interest is being awarded at the rate of 7-172 per cent in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya and Ors.,. Therefore, in that back-drop of the situation, the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment. 13. In view of the above, the impugned award stands modified in the manner indicated above. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.