Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The appellant- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘GSRTC’ for short) has filed the present First Appeal being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 5.11.1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha. By the common judgment and award, the Tribunal decided as many as 25 MAC Petitions, which included Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 210/1982, which was filed by the heirs of deceased driver of the truck which was dashed from behind by the ST bus causing death of the driver who was repairing headlight of the truck at 9.00 p.m. The claim petition was filed for an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 58,375/-. 2. The GSRTC has challenged the judgment and award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 210/1982, whereby, the GSRTC is required to pay Rs. 58,375/- by way of compensation to the heirs of the deceased. 3. Learned Advocate Ms. Archana Patel for Mr. Hardik Rawal vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in apportioning the negligence and on the basis of that, fixing the liability to pay the amount of compensation. In the judgment and award, the Tribunal has discussed the question of apportionment of negligence in Para 12, which reads as under:— “12. It is contended by M/s. K.A. Shah and H.M. Shah the learned Advocates for the Corporation that the driver of the truck should be blamed more as he was responsible for causing obstruction especially when the driver of the S.T. Bus found that vehicles were already coming from the opposite direction at the relevant time. Even this was the situation as argued by Mr. Shah, the driver of the truck would naturally shared more blame. It is significant to note that the driver of the S.T. Bus has not filed any written statement much less Corporation who has preferred to contest the claim-petition and filed its written statement, has not come out with specific plea of this nature. Moreover, apart from the bald statement from the driver of the truck, there is nothing on record to show that any other vehicle was seen coming from opposite direction when the accident took place. In L.I.C. vs. Legal representatives of deceased Naranbhai (1973 AC.J 266), it has been discussed that the entire doctrine of the last opportunity has now become absolute. In L.I.C. vs. Legal representatives of deceased Naranbhai (1973 AC.J 266), it has been discussed that the entire doctrine of the last opportunity has now become absolute. It has been pointed out in the said case that in such road accident case. The two relevant crucial questions must be determined by determining what faults wee there which caused damage and what was the proportion in which damages should be apportioned having regard to the responsibility of those in facult. Therefore, the driver of the S.T. Bus, Narayanbhai Raghubhai, cannot claim any emergency as there is nothing on record to suggest that any vehicle was coming from the opposite direction. The only inference therefore, is possible that he was not on the proper look out or he was going so fast that he could not avoid collision that the parked vehicle, i.e. the truck bearing No. P.J.Q. 3125. In fact, the force of the impact makes it in terms clear that the driver Narayanbhai Raghubhai must share the lerger part of the blame. As a matter of fact, the accident was the result of the composite negligence on the part of the driver of both the vehicles. In the circumstances as discussed above. I prefer to apportion the liability of the driver of the S.T. Bus and the truck interse in the ratio of 75 to 25 respectively. I, therefore, decide the issue No. accordingly. Resume on 20.10.1984.” This Court is of the opinion that the said apportionment cannot be said to be scientific inasmuch as it is on record that the truck was stationary and it was dashed from behind by ST bus. The case of the owner of the truck is that truck was parked on katcha road by putting stones around it. The driver of the ST bus came with fast speed and dashed the truck from behind. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated that when the truck was stationary and it is not on record that the truck was so parked that it was obstructing the road, there was no question of the truck driver being contributory negligent. 4. In absence of any appeal from the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, the Court does not interfere with the apportionment of negligence. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs. 58,375/-. 4. In absence of any appeal from the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, the Court does not interfere with the apportionment of negligence. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs. 58,375/-. The Tribunal has discussed these aspects in Para Nos. 18 to 27. For ready perusal, all these Paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:— “18.In the next group of 24 cases Hasmukhbhai Shankarbhai Upadhyay (22) of Bombay, claimant in Petition No. 210/82 has claimed Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation as compensation alleging that he has been rendered permanently disabled as a result of the injuries sustained by him during the accident. According to him, before the accident took place, he was serving as a sales-man in ‘Rajhans Textiles Pvt. Mill’s of Bombay and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1100/- and in addition he was getting travelling and other allowance by the Mill whenever he used to go on tour for obtaining orders. With regard to the nature of the injuries, he has stated in Para-4 of his testimony Exh.15 that he was injured on several parts of his body including left thigh and left ankle joint. It is his say that the injury on the left thigh had resulted in compound fracture for which he was first treated at V.S. Hospital for six days and thereafter he went to Bombay and took the treatment in Harkishan Hospital as an indoor patient for about three months where he was operated thrice and his left leg was kept under plaster which was removed in July 1982. It is his say that thereafter, again his left leg was kept under plaster for about 45 days and later on, he followed up exercised for about 2 ? months. As regards his disability, he has stated that he has to limp while walking and there is a loss of movement in the ankle joint and implants are in position. It is his say that thereafter, again his left leg was kept under plaster for about 45 days and later on, he followed up exercised for about 2 ? months. As regards his disability, he has stated that he has to limp while walking and there is a loss of movement in the ankle joint and implants are in position. It is his version that when he was able to resume his work he approached his employer, Hansrajbhai, the Director of the Mill, who told him that be (claimant) was not able to discharge his duty as a sales-man and thus, he did not permit him to resume his duty and hence, he obtained job with Bharat Traders of Bombay since November 1983, where he is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 550/-, but he is not make permanent on his job. According to the claimant, his present position of permanent impairment as a result of the injury is likely to affect his matrimonial prospects adversely. It is his say that he was spent in all Rs. 30,000/- on as counts including hospitalisation, medicine, medical treatment etc. Further, it is his say that his uncle used to attend him while he was in the hospital. 19. While taking me through the testimony of the claimant Hismukhbhai and Dr. B.K. Modi, Orthopaedic Surgeon of Ahmedabad. It is strenuously urged by Mr. Y.A. Chandniwala that there are no grounds to disbelieve the version of the claimant when he says that he was earning Rs. 1100/- per month while working as a sales-man in the ‘Rajhans Mills’ especially when he is supported by Bharatbhai Hansraj Thakker, the Executive Director of the said Mills. In his submission, the functional disability of 25% found by Dr. B.K. Modi, the loss of earning capacity in terms of money should be assessed at Rs. 550/- and 15 years’ multiplier should be pressed in service while evaluating the amount of compensation in addition to the amounts of Rs. 30,000/- spent by the claimant on the different counts like medicine, medical treatment, transportation etc. It is further submitted by Mr. Chandniwala that the amount claimed by the claimant is quite just and moderate and deserves to be allowed in toto. It is however, contended by the learned Advocates for the opponents that the claim is highly exaggerated and tall. 30,000/- spent by the claimant on the different counts like medicine, medical treatment, transportation etc. It is further submitted by Mr. Chandniwala that the amount claimed by the claimant is quite just and moderate and deserves to be allowed in toto. It is however, contended by the learned Advocates for the opponents that the claim is highly exaggerated and tall. According to them, the deceased was not holding any degree of Diploma and there is nothing on record to show that he was appointed at a monthly emolument of Rs. 450/- and muchless that the said salary was increased to Rs. 1100/- as asserted by the claimant. I find great substance in the submission made in this regard. 20. Bharatbhai Hansraj Thakker in his testimony Exh.76 conceded that no appointment order I writing was issued in favour of the claimant by his company as his Company is a Pvt. Ltd., and most of the directors of his mill are the members of one family. Accordingly to him, only 33 workers are employed in his mill which is comparatively a small one and there are no rules or regulations framed by the Company in respect of the conditions of the services of his employees. He also admitted that he has no document to show that the claimant Hasmukhbhai Upadhyaya was paid Rs. 450/- per month and gradually his salary was raised to Rs. 1100/-. He was also no writing to show that Hasmukhbhai was appointed on full time basis on permanent post. An attempt was made to rely on Exh.77 purported to have been written by Mr. Hansraj. The document has been exhibited subject to proof. The claimant’s witness Bharatbhai identified the signature of his further Hansraj in document M.77. Bharatbhai in his testimony Exh.76 asserted that claimant Hasmukhbhai has contacted him in his office at Bombay. When the claimant informed him, he was told that he cannot continue in the job as he was not able to walk and work on the original job. The evidence of Bharatbhai runs entirely counter to the testimony of claimant Hasmukhbhai. He does not say a word that he had contacted Bharatbhai and he had any such talks with him. On the country, it is his version that he had seen his boss Hansrajbhai who has not been examined by the claimant. The evidence of Bharatbhai runs entirely counter to the testimony of claimant Hasmukhbhai. He does not say a word that he had contacted Bharatbhai and he had any such talks with him. On the country, it is his version that he had seen his boss Hansrajbhai who has not been examined by the claimant. As per the version of Bharatbhai, there is a register showing the workers and officers of the staff of his company, who are on the pay-Roll of the relevant time. He also admitted that whenever the salary of the wages are paid to his employees including the staff members a signature of the party concerned, is obtained in the regular register maintained by the Company. No such register is forthcoming to support the version of the claimant that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 1100/-. It is quite possible that the claimant might be getting Rs. 450/- while working in the Mill but there is no cogent or reliable evidence to hold that he was getting a salary in the sum of Rs. 1100/- when the accident took place. 21. With regard to the nature of the injury, the reliance is first sought on the injury certificate Exh.101. It is borne out from the said injury certificate that Dr. Girish Mehta had examined Hasmukhbhai Upadhyaya in the civil Hospital, Himmatnagar at about 10.00 p.m. On 11.2.1982. He found the following injuries on his person: 1. C.L.W. on Lt. Cheek ¾’ X1/2' X ½’ with bleeding. 2. C.L.W. On Chin in middle part in the size of ¾’ X ?’ X 1/2' with bleeding. 3. X-ray shows fracture left femur upper 1/3rd. It is borne out from Memo M.17/6 that the claimant Hasmukhbhai was transferred to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad where he was treated for the aforesaid injuries. It is revealed from the said Memo that ‘Fasaotomy of leg’ and thigh compartments was done in emergency and open reduction and slab was given with regard to fracture dislocation left talo-novi-cular joint. In view of the several reports and prescriptions produced and relied by the claimant, it seems that the claimant was admitted in Sir Hurkishandas Nurrotumdas Hospital of Bombay. 22. The claimant with regard to the nature of the disability, has examined Dr. B.K. Modi. According to Dr. In view of the several reports and prescriptions produced and relied by the claimant, it seems that the claimant was admitted in Sir Hurkishandas Nurrotumdas Hospital of Bombay. 22. The claimant with regard to the nature of the disability, has examined Dr. B.K. Modi. According to Dr. B.K. Modi, the claimant Hasmukhbhai S. Upadhyaya had contacted him on 18.4.84 for obtaining disability certificate only when he had reported him that he was the resident of village Bakhor of Himmatnagar Taluka. Dr. B.K. Modi in his testimony Exh.80 has stated that he found following position in the case of the claimant. 1. Fracture of Lt. Femur was found united, but he had painful range of movements of Lt-hip in terminal degrees, particularly in rotation. 2. Flexion of Lt. Knee was restricted in terminal 20 and painful in terminal degrees. 3. There was a long leniar scar on lateral as pect left thigh which was tender on palpation on the plinth. The plinth was in position. There was wasting of 1' of thigh and 1' of calf muscle as compared to other leg. 4. There were multiple small scars on Lt. leg. 5. The range of the ankle movement is 10o in dorsi-flexion and planter flexion which were painful. 6. The foot(it) was in 10o of valgues (by the word valgus I mean the position of the foot which is titled outward.) 7. There was no movement at sub-talor Jt. 8. There was diminution of foot arches and the patient walk with flat foot (lt) sides. 9. The height of the heel was reduced by 1 cm. And it had altered shape and size. 10. The force- foot was also stiff and toe movements were also restricted in terminal degrees and painful. According to Dr. Modi, he had not taken any X-ray examination in his Nursing Home but the claimant-patient had brought bunch of X-ray plates and on reviewing the same he found the following position: 1. The patient had old communited fracture, mid- chart left femur which were united well with plate and screws in position. 2. The left ankle and foot had very serious injury of fracture dislocation of tarsal bones, which was treated with fusion of sub-talor jt. Which was found in sound position. 23. The patient had old communited fracture, mid- chart left femur which were united well with plate and screws in position. 2. The left ankle and foot had very serious injury of fracture dislocation of tarsal bones, which was treated with fusion of sub-talor jt. Which was found in sound position. 23. It is borne out from the bills and the vouchers produced and relied upon by the claimant that he was required to take the treatment in the Hospital at Bombay till 18.5.1982. It is further borne out from the materials brought on record that the claimant underwent operation twice during the treatment in the Hospital. The evidence discussed above, has established that on account of the nature of impairment, the claimant’s prospects of marriage is likely to suffer. The evidence suggest that prior to the accident, there was only one matrimonial offer but it was not concluded as he was looking for a better girl. The toll which the accident has taken is quite considerable if not, very heavy the assessment of damages under the present head has to be made on an overall estimate of the pain, suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life on account of the after-effects of the injuries. An integrated was of the totality of the after-effect of the injuries will have to be taken so as to assess lumpsum compensation. Baring in mind, all the circumstances of the case and taking an overall view of the scale of pain, suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, it appears to me that an award in the sum of Rs. 15000 under this head would be quite just, proper and adequate. 24. In addition to compensation payable for non-pecuniary damage, the claimant is entitled to be compensated for loss of earning capacity and the expenses, if any, incurred by him. It cannot be doubted that the injury to his leg which is a permanent disability, is likely to affect his earning capacity. As the claimant himself in his testimony Exh.15 has conceded that he is getting a monthly salary of Rs. 550/- while doing the job with Bharat Traders of Bombay. It is therefore, submitted that the claimant is now getting something more than what the claimant was earning prior to the date of the accident. It is not possible to accept the arguments of the learned Advocates for the opponents. 550/- while doing the job with Bharat Traders of Bombay. It is therefore, submitted that the claimant is now getting something more than what the claimant was earning prior to the date of the accident. It is not possible to accept the arguments of the learned Advocates for the opponents. 25. In principle, the loss of bodily integrity gives a right to damages even if there is no damage at all to the earning capacity or even to enjoyment of life. But, damages in such cases are awarded commensurate with the extent, gravity and duration of the injury. The test in such case is to ask as to whether physical integrity of the injured person is broken, and if so, whether the same is of a temporary or a permanent nature and thirdly, what impact, that is, to what extent this physical incapability or temporary or permanent disability will be reflected in the earning capacity of the injured. 26. In the instant case, flexion of left keen is restricted in terminal 20o and there is no movement at sub-talor joint. The movements of the fore-foot are also restricted in terminal degrees. Dr. Modi however, conceded that the fracture sustained by the patient had united and there was no necessity to keep the nail in position. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the permanent disability with which the claimant is saddled on account of the accident will be permanently reflected in his earning capacity according to the extent and gravity of his physical handicap. The claimant is 24 years old. It is possible to assume that the claimant was getting a money salary of Rs. 450/- at the relevant time. Looking to his young age it is quite possible that he would have augmented his income in course of time, in my opinion, on a conservative estimate of 20% the probable reflection of the permanent disability on his earning capacity of Rs. 625/- and a multiplier of 15 is applied, then the compensation will work out as follows: 125 x 12= 1200 x15= 22,500/-. 27. While evaluating the pecuniary loss, the period from the date of the accident to the date on which the claimant steps in the witness -box has to be reckoned. The accident took place on 11.2.1982. The claimant steps in the witness box on 16.2.1984. Thus, a period of merely 29 months is required to be computed. 27. While evaluating the pecuniary loss, the period from the date of the accident to the date on which the claimant steps in the witness -box has to be reckoned. The accident took place on 11.2.1982. The claimant steps in the witness box on 16.2.1984. Thus, a period of merely 29 months is required to be computed. In light of the nature of the fracture and the treatment taken by the claimant, it is possible to assume that he could not have attended his job at least for a period of about six months. Considering the loss of income at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month Rs. 3000/- is assessed as total loss of income in the case of the claimant. For the rest of the period of 23 months, it is assessed at Rs. 2,875/- at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. Even though the claimant has stated that he had spent Rs. 30,000/-, he has not examined any witnesses in support of vouchers produced by him. However, it would be quite reasonable to estimate such expenses at Rs. 15,000/- in light of the receipts issued by Harkishan Hospital and other vouchers. This figure would take care of the gratuitous services rendered by any relative while he was in the hospital. The claimant Hasmukhbhai Shankarbhai Upadhyaya is, therefore, entitled to a flobal amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 58,375/- in the following terms: 1. Rs. 15,000/- for non-pecuniary damages. 2. Rs. 22,500/- future loss of earning capacity. 3. Rs. 03,000/- for loss of income for the period of six months at the rate of Rs. 500/-. 4. Rs. 02,875/- for loss of income for the period of 23 months at the rate of Rs. 125/-. 5. Rs. 15,000/- on the count of medicine, medical treatment, special diet, transportation and gratuitous services rendered by his relative etc. ______________ Rs. 58,375/-’ ______________ 6. Despite her strenuous efforts, the learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to dislodge any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In the opinion of this Court, the amount awarded cannot be said to be exorbitant or unjust by any standard. Therefore, this First Appeal must fail and the same is accordingly dismissed.