Judgment Heard Smt. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the appellant Respondent remained absent throughout, inspite of due service of summons notice in the Appeal. 2. The present Appeal is preferred against the award passed by the learned District Judge/Ex-Officio Member of the M.A.C.T., Nanded, aggrieved by the lesser grant of quantum of compensation. 3. Since the respondent did not prefer any Appeal, now it is a foregone conclusion that the accident in question has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus of the respondent -M.S.R.T.C. on 19.1.1991 on Hingoli, road when the appellant-driver was driving the motorcycle. The question, therefore, involved in the present Appeal is limited to the quantum of compensation. 4. The appellant's case in short was that he being 30 years young man, carrying the occupation of hotel had suffered grievous injuries i.e. fracture to his left tibia and fibula. Further, he not only lost his income during the treatment of the injuries but he has also incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/-towards the medical treatment, travelling, lodging and expenses upon the attenders. In the circumstances, on different counts, like pain and sufferings and loss of business and expenses in future, he had claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. Before the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. the appellant examined himself, supported by the evidence of Dr. Shrikant Lavekar and necessary documents in this regard. 6. Learned Member adverted to the admission of P.W.2 Dr. Lavekar that all the injuries were cured. The learned Member further noted from his personal experience that Shri Guru Govind Singh Memorial Hospital situated at Nanded had good facilities of treatment and inspite of that the petitioner took discharge from that hospital within 24 hours. It was further observed that though the petitioner deposed that he was attended for eight months, there was no record to accept the said contention. Therefore, by way of guess work the learned Member observed that an amount of Rs.10,000/-, as general damages would be just and sufficient. However, finding that an amount of Rs.12,000/-was already received by the petitioner towards the claim of no-fault liability, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. 7. Mrs. A.N. Ansari, learned Advocate for the Appellant took me through the evidence on record and more particularly, the deposition of Dr. Shrikant Lavekar, which showed that the tibia and fibula of the left leg of the petitioner were fractured. 7. Mrs. A.N. Ansari, learned Advocate for the Appellant took me through the evidence on record and more particularly, the deposition of Dr. Shrikant Lavekar, which showed that the tibia and fibula of the left leg of the petitioner were fractured. She further pointed out that in the very immediately filed F.I.R. there is a reference of the running of the business of hotel by the petitioner. In the circumstances, Mrs. Ansari, submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Member is not correct. She therefore submitted that compensation atleast of Rs.1,00,000/-may be granted. Mrs. Ansari, learned Advocate also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman alias Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2012 AIR S.C.W. 361, wherein it was noted by the Supreme Court that the financially weaker victim generally fail to engage competent lawyers for effective prosecution for their cases and, therefore, the Courts are empowered to give amount of compensation by some guesswork. 8. On the basis of this material, following point arises for my determination:- Whether the learned Member of the M.A.C.T. wrongly arrived at the quantum of the compensation? My answer is in the affirmative for the reasons to follow. REASONS : 9. Certified copy of the F.I.R. at Exhibit 23 filed in the Petition shows that the appellant has stated before the Police immediately after the accident that since about two months preceding the occurrence of the accident, he had started his own hotel. In view of this fact, the learned Member ought to have taken into consideration that the petitioner was carrying the business of running hotel when he met with the accident, in which both the bones of his left leg were fractured. It is a common knowledge that the fracture of the bone takes time to re-unite. Therefore, when P.W.2 Dr. Lavekar has candidly deposed that the injuries were cured, it can very well be inferred that the petitioner was immobile atleast for the period of one month. 10. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Lavekar showed that after taking discharge from Shri Guru Govind Singh Memorial Hospital, Nanded, as is proved by discharge certificate at Exhibit 25, the petitioner has taken treatment with private Doctor i.e. P.W.2 Dr. Lavekar. 10. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Lavekar showed that after taking discharge from Shri Guru Govind Singh Memorial Hospital, Nanded, as is proved by discharge certificate at Exhibit 25, the petitioner has taken treatment with private Doctor i.e. P.W.2 Dr. Lavekar. The learned Member, however, remarked that there was no need for the petitioner to take discharge from the public Charitable Hospital and to take treatment at the private hospital. According to the personal knowledge of the learned Member, the hospital run by the public Charitable Trust has good facilities and, therefore, the petitioner ought not have taken treatment with the private surgeon. Ex-facie, the reasoning of the learned Member are wrong. It is for the patient to decide as to where he should take treatment and the opinion from person to person in this regard could not weigh in assessing the damages. 11. No doubt, the petitioner could not place any documentary evidence regarding expenses made by him, but he has very well proved that he had suffered fractures to his tibia and fibula of his left leg. The very fact that the petitioner was running a hotel and was having his own motorcycle, would go to show that he had suffered loss of income from running his own hotel during the period of one month, when he was immobile. Further, the learned Member ought to have assessed the amount of expenses towards the medical treatment and could have granted non-pecuniary damages for pain and sufferings. The learned Member, however, suddenly out of blue, observed that compensation of Rs.10,000/-would be just and sufficient. 12. In view of the above circumstances, considering the fact that the accident has occurred in the year 1991, an amount of Rs.5000/-towards the loss of income for a period of one month would be just and sufficient. Towards the medical expenses including the allied expenses like travelling, attender etc. an amount of Rs.10,000/-would be just and sufficient. Towards the pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.2000/-would be just and sufficient. Total compensation on all the heads would thus come to Rs.17,000/-. In the circumstances, the compensation of Rs.12,000/-granted by the learned Member, will have to be enhanced. 13. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Member, directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.12,000/-inclusive of no-fault liability, is hereby set aside. Total compensation on all the heads would thus come to Rs.17,000/-. In the circumstances, the compensation of Rs.12,000/-granted by the learned Member, will have to be enhanced. 13. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Member, directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.12,000/-inclusive of no-fault liability, is hereby set aside. Instead, it is hereby directed that the respondent M.S.R.T.C. shall pay compensation of Rs.17,000/-by deducting an amount of Rs.12,000/-already paid towards the no-fault liability, and interest on the additional amount from the date of accident till the realisation of the additional amount with costs. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.