JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the present appeals have arisen out of the same award, passed by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in Petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. First Appeal No. 57 of 1995 is filed by Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, who was respondent no.1 before the learned Tribunal, having control over one of the vehicles involved in the accident. The original claimant-petitioner has preferred an appeal for enhancement in compensation, awarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. The appellant-Zilla Parishad is challenging the award on three grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that though Zilla Parishad was merely in the custody of the vehicle, i.e. the dumper bearing registration No. MTO-7316, owned by the State Government, it is also held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Second limb of attack is that its driver i.e. present respondent No.2-Bhalchandra Vitthal Bhakare, was not rash and negligent in driving the said vehicle. Last attack is on the quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The original claimant, i.e. appellant in Appeal No.737 of 1994, attacked the reasonings, wherein lesser compensation than claimed was granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 5. The accident had occurred on 27.06.1988, on turn near bridge on Ahmednagar-Manmad Road. The dumper, Maruti car bearing No.MAF-882 and Luna Moped bearing No. MGM-1985 were involved in the accident. Mr. Mohanlal Duggad was travelling by the Moped and was injured in the said accident. The claimant-Mohanlal, in his petition, pleaded that the dumper came from the opposite side in speed and gave dash to his Luna, and thereafter dashed to Maruti Car coming from behind of Luna. In the circumstances, he pleaded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the dumper as well as the driver of Maruti Car. During the course of his evidence, however, he deposed that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of dumper. The plea of the dumper driver i.e. original respondent No.2 was that Maruti Car was coming from opposite side in high and excessive speed. The driver of the Maruti Car himself has lost control over the Maruti car and gave dash to dumper, and went behind it, thereafter dashed to Luna Moped which was coming from behind of Maruti Car. The plea of the dumper driver i.e. original respondent No.2 was that Maruti Car was coming from opposite side in high and excessive speed. The driver of the Maruti Car himself has lost control over the Maruti car and gave dash to dumper, and went behind it, thereafter dashed to Luna Moped which was coming from behind of Maruti Car. According to Maruti Car driver i.e. respondent No.4 Shirish, dumper itself came from wrong side in speed and gave dash to Luna. He himself had witnessed the accident and took the Maruti car on the extreme left side of the road i.e. on Kaccha road. However, dumper came towards Maruti Car and gave dash to it. It is case is thus that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of dumper. 6. The pleadings of the Zilla Parishad i.e. appellant in Appeal No. 57 of 1995 are to the effect of denial of all facts, pleaded by the claimant. It was ultimately pleaded that as the State Government was owner of the dumper and it was merely controlling the same, being given under certain scheme, it is not liable to pay any compensation, as it was not the owner of the vehicle. It appears that the car was not insured during the relevant period. The State of Maharashtra, original respondent No.5 traversed all pleadings of the claimant. It was further submitted that since during the relevant period, the dumper was given in the custody of the Zilla Parishad, the State is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. The parties went to trial. The claimant as well as the dumper and car drivers examined themselves and closed their evidence. The certified copies of First Information Report and panchnama drawn on the spot by the concerned Police, were placed on record. For the purposes of compensation, the petitioner/claimant relied on some documents like medical certificate, permanent disability certificate etc. The learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the dumper as well as Maruti car. Therefore, all drivers as well as owners of these vehicles along with the present appellant-Zilla Parishad were held liable to pay compensation in proportion of 50% each with interest. The learned Member of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the dumper as well as Maruti car. Therefore, all drivers as well as owners of these vehicles along with the present appellant-Zilla Parishad were held liable to pay compensation in proportion of 50% each with interest. It further arrived at the compensation of Rs.66,752/-, as against tile claim of the petitioner/claimant at Rs.1,21,000,-. 8. Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar vehemently submits that during the relevant period, the Zilla Parishd was merely handling the dumper owned by respondent No.5-State, therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. In the alternative, he advanced his argument on the question of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and regarding the quantum of compensation. 9. On the other hand, Mr. U.S. Malte, learned counsel for the original claimants submitted that, all respondents were liable to pay compensation in proportionate, as directed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. He further assailed the findings of the learned Member of the Tribunal, granting compensation. 10. On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination: (i) Due to whose rash and negligent driving, the accident in question had occurred? (ii) Whether the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar is liable to pay any compensation? (iii) What is the just compensation in the present case? My finding to the point Nos.(i) is due to rash and negligent driving of the dumper driver, (ii) Yes and (iii) as per the final order, for the reasons to follow. REASONS 11. As regard question as to whether, who was rash and negligent, it is already noted that original petitioner made some variance between the pleadings in the application and oral evidence. The dumper driver i.e. original respondent No.2 deposed that Maruti car came from opposite side in high speed. The driver of the same lost control over the Maruti car and dashed to the dumper. His further version is that the Luna of the claimant was behind the Maruti car. The Maruti car dragged Luna and the accident had occurred. He further deposed that he was driving the dumper from left side in a slow speed, as there was bridge to the west after turn, he could saw Maruti car coming in high speed from at some distance, and therefore, he was cautious. The Maruti car dragged Luna and the accident had occurred. He further deposed that he was driving the dumper from left side in a slow speed, as there was bridge to the west after turn, he could saw Maruti car coming in high speed from at some distance, and therefore, he was cautious. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not inform to the Police about the accident. Admittedly, he was charged for driving the dumper in rash and negligent manner. 12. Original respondent No.4 owner-cum-driver of Maruti car deposed that the dumper came towards the direction of Maruti car in speed and dashed the car. Even the dumper dragged Maruti car for a distance of 100 to 150 feet towards its back side, resulting into giving dash to Luna. Between these two contradictory statements, the learned Member of the Tribunal relied upon the certified copy of the panchnama of spot of occurrence, recorded by the Police soon after the accident i.e. between 14.55 and 15.45 hors. The panchnama recorded shows that the tyre marks of the cleaner side of Maruti car were observed at a distance of 2 feet away from tar road, while tyre marks of driver side of Maruti car were found at a distance of 6 feet. Front portion of Maruti car was heavily pressed. Driver side portion of the dumper as well as mudguard of the dumper was pressed. Learned Member of the Tribunal, therefore, observed that the panchnama shows that the dumper must have gone on the wrong side and dashed to Maruti car. 13. The panchnama, thus, clearly shows that the dumper went towards right side to the effect that Maruti car was required to be taken away from the tar road and on the kaccha road, at a distance of 2 feet away from the tar road. It is not the case of the dumper driver that he was overtaking any vehicle and in that process, he was required to take the dumper beyond the central line of the road and to t e extreme right side. In that view of the matt r, submission of Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for Zilla Parishad that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti car, cannot be accepted. In that view of the matt r, submission of Mr. S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for Zilla Parishad that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti car, cannot be accepted. Ultimately, the findings of the learned Member of the Tribunal in this regard will have to be confirmed. 14. This take us to consider the issue of liability of appellant-Zilla Parishad. The evidence on record shows that the dumper is owned by the State of Maharashtra. It is the case of the Zilla Parishad, that it was assigned to it by the State for implementation of the scarcity work. In the circumstances, Mr. Shelke submits that as Zilla Parishad was not the owner of the vehicle, it is not liable to pay any compensation. He relied on the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, runs as under: "168-Award of Claims Tribunal: (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties(including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be:" (Emphasis supplied) 15. On the other hand, Mr. U.S. Malte, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 relied on the ratio in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepa Devi and others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court 414 and AIR 2008 Supreme Court 735(1) : (2008(1) AllMR 924 (S.C.)). 16. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., (2008(1) AllMR 924 (S.C.)] (supra), the motor vehicle in question was requisitioned by the Election Commission during the Assembly election. While the vehicle was under the control of the Election Officer, it was involved in the accident. 16. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., (2008(1) AllMR 924 (S.C.)] (supra), the motor vehicle in question was requisitioned by the Election Commission during the Assembly election. While the vehicle was under the control of the Election Officer, it was involved in the accident. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. The owner and insurer claimed that since the owner was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of accident, they are not liable to pay any compensation. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that since the owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of the Election Commission, being a statutory order, he could not exercise any control whatsoever thereupon and, therefore, merely legal ownership continues with owner, while the vehicle remained under the control of the State. In the circumstances, it was further held that the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view. 17. Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad further submits that in the ease of National Insurance Company, [2008(1) AllMR 924 (S.C.)] (supra), there was a statutory requisition of the vehicle, while in the present case, the State has on his own handed over the dumper to the Zilla Parishad and in the circumstances, the State cannot be absolved from making the payment of compensation. 18. It may however be noted that in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd, [2008(1) AllMR 924 (S.C.)] (cited supra) another authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Nath Koathari and others (1997)7 SCC 181, is cited. In this case, the Bus was given on lease by the owner of the vehicle in favour of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. It met with an accident, while under the control of the Corporation. In the situations, the Supreme Court has held that when an accident takes place when the bus was plied under the control of the corporation, it was the Corporation alone, who would be liable for the compensation. In the present case, the State Government had handed over the control of the dumper to the Zilla Parishad. In the circumstances, the ratio of the Kailash Nath Kothari (cited supra) would be applicable. In the present case, the State Government had handed over the control of the dumper to the Zilla Parishad. In the circumstances, the ratio of the Kailash Nath Kothari (cited supra) would be applicable. Therefore, the direction of the learned Member of the Tribunal, to Zilla Parishad to pay compensation to the petitioner, cannot be faulted with. 19. As regards quantum of the compensation, the learned Member of the Tribunal took into consideration 65 bills of the hospital and medical stores for an amount of Rs.15,401/- and granted that much amount only, by rejecting the arguments that the Court should have taken into consideration that only some of the bills, could be filed. The learned Member of the Tribunal even refused to grant any amount towards attendance charges and only an amount of Rs.1935/- and Rs.2016/- on account of special diet was granted considering two bills filed on record. In absence of any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal did not grant any compensation to the claimant towards loss of business. Towards further surgery, an amount of Rs.5000/- was granted. Thus, total compensation was granted as under: Rs.15,401/- On account of Medical expenses. Rs.1,935/- On account of special diet. Rs.2,016/- Cost on attendants. Rs.2,400/- On account of his trips to Pune for follow up. Rs.5,000/- Expenses that would be required for surgery for removal of the rod in right femur. Rs.26,752/- Total. 20. Besides the pecuniary damages, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/- on account of pains and suffering were granted. Thus, total compensation of Rs.66,752/- was granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal including payment made towards 'No fault Liability'. 21. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the claimant-petitioner has suffered following injuries: (a) Cerebral concussion, (b) Multiple CLWS face, (c) fracture shaft femur(Rt) (d) Compound fracture Tibia Fibula (Rt) 22. The learned Member of the Tribunal also considered the documents that the petitioner was initially hospitalized for 41 days. In view of this material, the compensation granted by the learned Member, cannot at all be termed as excessive one. Therefore, the Appeal of the Zilla Parishad in this regard, requires to be dismissed. 23. Mr. Malte, learned counsel appearing for the original claimant submits that the compensation granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal is illusory. In view of this material, the compensation granted by the learned Member, cannot at all be termed as excessive one. Therefore, the Appeal of the Zilla Parishad in this regard, requires to be dismissed. 23. Mr. Malte, learned counsel appearing for the original claimant submits that the compensation granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal is illusory. The appellant-Prakash was 22 years young man, at the relevant time, who was running the business of hotel and he was getting income of Rs.1500/ - to Rs.1700/- per month during the period of accident. Further he was a building material supplier. He was not able to run the business for eight months. In the circumstances, the claim of Rs.16,000/- for loss of actual income, Rs.60,000/- for loss of future income and Rs.30,000/- towards medical bills and other allied expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings, thus, total amount of Rs.1,21,000/- ought to have been granted by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 24. The Judgment of learned Tribunal shows that, as regards compensation on pecuniary heads, it has accepted only the documentary evidence on record and refused to accept the statement that some of the bills were missing, in absence of statement to that effect in the examination-in-chief of the appellant-claimant-Prakash. No compensation towards actual loss of business of 41 days and towards future loss in income, is granted. It should be noted that tibia, fibula shaft of the femur and femur of the right side of the petitioner claimant has suffered fracture. When he was examined at Sancehti Institution, Pune (Exhibit 60/3) cerebral concussion was also noticed in his brain. Despite this, the learned Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards the loss of income or future income. The Tribunal found that while in the petition, the claimant petitioner described his occupation as service, in the deposition, he has stated that he is a businessman, as stated supra. 25. It may however be noted that the claimant-petitioner was a young man of 22 years of age. Considering all theses facts on record, the learned Member ought to have granted an amount of Rs. 8000/- at least towards loss of actual income i.e. Rs.1000/- per month for eight months, including the days of his hospitalization. 25. It may however be noted that the claimant-petitioner was a young man of 22 years of age. Considering all theses facts on record, the learned Member ought to have granted an amount of Rs. 8000/- at least towards loss of actual income i.e. Rs.1000/- per month for eight months, including the days of his hospitalization. As regards claim of Rs.30,000/- towards medical bills and other allied charges, it may be noted that the claimant-petitioner was particular in preserving the bills of hospital, medical stores, and even of the canteen and Boarding bills. In the circumstances, the learned Member rightly concluded that no compensation beyond this documentary evidence, needs to be granted. 26. In the result, First Appeal No.737 of 1994 filed by the Appellant-Original claimant-Prakash needs to be partly allowed to the extent of grant of additional compensation of Rs.8000/-. As regards interest on the enhanced compensation, it may be noted that, the petition was filed on 28.12.1988, which came to be decided by the Tribunal on 14.03.1999. The present appeal is being decided after a lapse of about 18 years. In the circumstances, an aggregate amount of Rs.15,000/- would be meet the ends of justice. 27. In the result. First Appeal bearing No. 57 of 1995 is dismissed, without any order as to costs whereas Appeal No. 737 of 1994 is partly allowed. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 in this appeal shall jointly and severally pay the additional aggregate compensation of Rs.15,000/- with proportionate costs of the Appeal to the appellant. Appeal Partly allowed.