JUDGMENT Heard Mr. A.R. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.G. Shobe, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 1, in both the appeals. 2. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment since they pertain to the same motor vehicular accident. The First Appeal No. 329 of 2003 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 27/08/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa (the Tribunal, in short) in Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 whereas First Appeal No. 38 of 2004 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 14/11/2003 passed by the same Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997. 3. Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth (Claimant of Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997), an advocate by profession and Mr. Glen Souza Ticlo, a businessman, were traveling in a Tatamobile jeep bearing registration no. GA01/N-2639 belonging to Glen Ticlo and driven by the deceased namely Bonaventura Domnick D’Souza and they were proceeding from Goa to Mumbai on 20/10/1996. On reaching Mouze Khed, Ratnagiri, at about 1.30 a.m., on 21/10/1996, there was an accident between the said Tatamobile and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC, for short) bus bearing registration No. MH-2020-D-2518 driven by respondent no. 2 of both cases, namely Mr. Adikrao Chavan. 4. It is the case of the claimants in both the cases that the said MSRTC bus came from opposite direction with only one head light on and at a very fast speed, lost control and dashed against the Tatamobile as a result of which the driver of Tatamobile namely Mr. Bonaventura died on the spot whereas Mr. Benedict Nazareth sustained fracture injuries to ribs, head and leg, resulting in permanent disability. 5. Claimant of Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 alleged that her son, Bona, was 30 years old at the time of death and was working as driver for Mr. Glen Ticlo and was earning about Rs 3,000/- per month and she was dependent on him. The claimant of Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 claimed total compensation of Rs 7,00,000/- on account of dependency, transportation expenses, medical expenses, loss of company, loss of income, and pain and suffering. 6. Glen Ticlo and was earning about Rs 3,000/- per month and she was dependent on him. The claimant of Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 claimed total compensation of Rs 7,00,000/- on account of dependency, transportation expenses, medical expenses, loss of company, loss of income, and pain and suffering. 6. The claimant of Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997 (Benedict) is an Advocate by profession and he stated that on account of the injuries sustained by him, he had to be brought home in an ambulance after being treated at Chiplun Hospital and was thereafter totally confined to the bed and had to go for follow up treatment as an outpatient. The claimant suffered professionally as he was unable to attend his office for a period of 3 months and lost valuable clientele and income. His wife, who was also temporarily employed had to abstain from work for a period of one month for which she lost salary of Rs 5,200/-. The said claimant claimed total compensation of Rs 3,00,000/- towards medical bills, medication, hospitalization, loss of income, transportation, attendant and the disability suffered by him. 7. The case of MSRTC was of total denial. It was alleged that the accident has occurred entirely on account of the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tatamobile who came at a very fast speed and was unable to negotiate the curve as a result of which the Tatamobile skidded and dashed against the bus coming from the opposite direction. The said bus was driven at a very moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. MSRTC also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by both the claimants. 8. Accordingly, issues were framed by the Tribunal in both the Claim Petitions. In Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997, the claimant who is mother of the deceased, Bona, examined her other son namely Avelino D'Souza, having Power of Attorney on behalf of the claimant, as AW1, Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth as AW2 and Mr. Glen Ticlo as AW3. MSRTC examined the driver of the bus namely Shri Adikrao Sawant as RW1, the conductor of the said bus namely Shri Anand Maharidi as RW2 and the then Head Constable of Chiplun Police Station, Shri Rupnath Shirdhankar as RW3. In Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997, the claimant examined himself as AW1, Mr. Glen Ticlo as AW2 and Dr. Zelio D'mello as AW3. In Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997, the claimant examined himself as AW1, Mr. Glen Ticlo as AW2 and Dr. Zelio D'mello as AW3. MSRTC examined the driver of the bus namely Shri Adikrao Sawant as RW1, the conductor namely Shri Anand Maharidi as RW2, said Head Constable of Chiplun Police Station, Shri Rupnath Shirdhankar as RW3 and the retired Police Sub Inspector of Khed, namely Shri Shreepat Sadu Gurav as RW4. 9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record in both the cases, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of MSRTC bus by respondent no. 2. Insofar as, Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 is concerned, the Tribunal held that the respondents jointly and severally are liable to pay to the claimant an amount of Rs. 2,78,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment whereas in Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997, the Tribunal held that the respondents no. I and 2 shall jointly and severally pay to the claimant an amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment. The amount, if any, paid to the claimants in each case under Section 140 of M.V. Act shall be adjusted against the total compensation. 10. Aggrieved, the respondent no. 1 in both the cases namely MSRTC, has filed both the appeals. 11. Mr. Kantak, the learned Counsel for MSRTC invited my attention to the sketch of the scene of accident which is a part of Exhibit 40-Colly in Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997. He submitted that the bus was traveling from Mumbai to Kandalgaon and the Tatamobile came from opposite direction and hence if the bus had been at a very fast speed then it would have either crushed the Tatamobile or would have pushed if back but the bus would not have gone out side the road on the left hand side and would not have turned turtle. According to him, the sketch speaks for itself and reveals that the Tatamobile had came at a very fast speed and had dashed the bus due to which the wind screen of the Jeep had broken and the occupants of the same were thrown out. According to him, the sketch speaks for itself and reveals that the Tatamobile had came at a very fast speed and had dashed the bus due to which the wind screen of the Jeep had broken and the occupants of the same were thrown out. He submitted that since the bus was being driven on its correct side, after the dash it fell on its own side, in its attempt to save the Tatamobile which came on wrong side. He submitted that, therefore, the deposition of the claimant Benedict Nazareth and eye witness Glen Ticlo is not reliable whereas the testimony of the driver of the bus (RW1) which is in consonance with the sketch should be relied upon. He pointed out from the evidence of the Investigating Officer namely RW3 Rupnath Shirdhankar that the F.I.R. was registered against the deceased driver of the jeep namely Bona and since he died, the case was treated as "A" final. He submitted that investigation had revealed that the fault was on the part of the deceased driver of Tatamobile whereas there was no fault on the part of the driver of bus due to which no offence was registered against the bus driver. He therefore submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. 12. Insofar as, quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Counsel for MSRTC submitted that in Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 though it was alleged that the deceased was working as driver, however, the evidence on record reveals that he was working as Site Supervisor due to which there is no certainty about the alleged work which the deceased was doing. He further submitted that there is no documentary evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and mere certificate issued by interested witness namely Glen Ticlo stating that he was paying Rs 3000/- per month to the deceased would not be sufficient for proving the income of the deceased. According to him, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the notional income as specified in the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering which according to him is on a higher side. He therefore submitted that compensation paid to the claimant in Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 is without any basis. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering which according to him is on a higher side. He therefore submitted that compensation paid to the claimant in Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997 is without any basis. Insofar as, the Claim Petition No. 84/1997 is concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the claimant was earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a huge amount of Rs 1,00,000/- towards permanent disability without any basis. He also submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs 5,000/- towards loss of earning though it was not at all proved that the claimant's income was Rs 5,000/- per month and that he could not work for three months. He therefore urged that both the appeals are liable to be allowed and the Claim Petitions are liable to be dismissed or in the alternative the amount of compensation is liable to be considerably reduced. 13. Per contra, Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, submitted that the standard of proof in Claim Petition is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but is preponderance of probabilities. He submitted that the evidence of RW2, the conductor of the bus is of no use and as against the evidence of one eye witness namely RW 1, adduced by MSRTC, there is evidence of two eye witnesses namely the injured Benedict Nazareth and the other occupant of the jeep namely Glen Ticlo, on behalf of the claimants. According to him, the evidence produced by claimants is far superior in quality than that produced by MSRTC. He, therefore, submitted that the evidence on record proves that the Tatamobile was driven at slow speed as it was ascending the slope and the bus which was descending the said slope, while negotiating the curve at a high speed, came and dashed the said Tatamobile and therefore the occupants of Tata mobile were thrown out and the Tatamobile had fallen out side the road whereas the driver of the bus could not control the same after the impact due to which the bus went and fell 10 feet below the road after turning turtle with front wheels dismantled. According to the learned Counsel no fault at all can be found with the findings of the learned Tribunal on the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus. 14. On the quantum of compensation, the learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that insofar as the deceased Bona D'Souza is concerned, there is oral as well as documentary evidence proving his income as Rs 3,000/- per month. He submitted that AW1 and AW2 both stated about the monthly income of the deceased whereas AW2 has produced his own certificate certifying the income as also some vouchers showing that he had paid Rs 3,000/- per month to the deceased. He submitted that the age of the mother has been taken into consideration since the deceased was younger to her and multiplier of 11 as mentioned in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act has been considered by the learned Tribunal for arriving at the compensation. He pointed out that income to the extent of 1/3rd has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. He submitted that awarding Rs. 3000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs 2,500/- towards transportation of body and Rs 10,000/- towards pain and suffering cannot be held to be excessive. He vehemently contended that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the claimants of Claim Petition no. 85 of 1997. 15. In respect of the Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997, the learned Counsel for the claimants, submitted that there can be nothing wrong in holding that the income of a practicing Advocate, in or about 1996 was Rs 5000/- per month. He pointed out that the claimant had produced medical bills/prescriptions in support of his claim and had examined the Doctor who has proved that the claimant had sustained permanent disability of 20%, there being limitation in movement of left leg. According to him, therefore, the amount of Rs 1,00,000/- only awarded towards permanent disability cannot be termed as exorbitant. He further submitted that the claimant had produced evidence on record for having incurred the expenses of Rs 2000/- for transportation to Goa Medical College and expenses of Rs 10,000/- towards engaging an ambulance. He pointed out that the medical papers on record and the evidence of Dr. He further submitted that the claimant had produced evidence on record for having incurred the expenses of Rs 2000/- for transportation to Goa Medical College and expenses of Rs 10,000/- towards engaging an ambulance. He pointed out that the medical papers on record and the evidence of Dr. D’mello unerringly prove that the claimant could not have practiced at least for three months and hence the compensation of Rs 15,000/- awarded towards loss of income is just and perfectly proper. He therefore submitted that in case of Benedict Nazareth also just and reasonable compensation has been awarded. He therefore submitted that both the appeals be dismissed with costs. 16. I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties in both the Claim Petitions and I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties. 17. First point that arises for determination is as to which driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently whether it is the driver of Tatamobile or whether it is the driver of bus. 18. It is well settled that in Claim Petition strict proof of accident is not required and standard of proof regarding negligence is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but is preponderance of probabilities. In the case of “Bimla Devi and others Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,” reported in 2009 ALL SCR 1771, the Apex Court has held that strict proof of accident cannot be expected from claimants, who were not present at the occurrence and they have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Perusal of the testimonies of Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth and Mr. Glen Ticlo, who both were the occupants of the Jeep, discloses that they have corroborated each other on all the material facts constituting the cause of the accident. Both deposed that the accident took place on 21/10/1996 at about 01.30 a.m. at Khed. The deceased Bona D'Souza was driving the Tatamobile vehicle bearing No. GA-01/N-2639, Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth was sitting next to the driver and Mr. Glen Ticlo was sitting on the extreme left side i.e. to the left of Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth. In other words. Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth was sitting in between the deceased Bona D'Souza and Glen Ticlo. They were going to Bombay and had started at about 5.30 p.m. on 20/1 0/1996. Glen Ticlo was sitting on the extreme left side i.e. to the left of Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth. In other words. Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth was sitting in between the deceased Bona D'Souza and Glen Ticlo. They were going to Bombay and had started at about 5.30 p.m. on 20/1 0/1996. The Tatamobile was being driven at the speed of about 40 k.m. per hour and they were negotiating a curve. It was drizzling at the relevant time. However, they were on the left side of the road. The S.T. Bus came from the opposite direction with only one head light on which was on the left hand side and it came at a very fast speed and negotiated the curve due to which the driver lost the balance and gave dash to the Tatamobile. Due to the impact, the front glass of the Tata mobile broke and three occupants fell out side the vehicle. The driver Bona D'Souza died on the spot. Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth fell unconscious with injuries whereas Glen Ticlo suffered minor injuries. It is in the evidence of both these witnesses that the bus came to the extreme right side and dashed Tatamobile. The evidence further reveals that the Tatamobile was ascending the slope whereas the bus was coming down the slope. Both the witnesses have denied that Tatamobile was on the wrong side and dashed against the bus which was on the correct side. 19. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for MSRTC that Mr. Glen Ticlo in his cross-examination stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. The learned Counsel for MSRTC invited my attention to the evidence of RW3, the Head Constable, wherein he specifically stated that Glen had given his statement on 20/1 0/1996 at about 5.00 p.m. saying that at the time of accident, he as well as Benedict were sleeping. RW3 deposed as to what Glen Ticlo revealed in his said police statement. That being a statement made by a witness to the Investigating Officer, the same is not admissible. Mr. Glen Ticlo was examined as witness by the claimants. It was incumbent upon MSRTC to have confronted Mr. Glen Ticlo with his police statement and to have brought on record the contradictions which are there in the said police statement viz-a-viz his deposition in the Court. Mr. Glen Ticlo was examined as witness by the claimants. It was incumbent upon MSRTC to have confronted Mr. Glen Ticlo with his police statement and to have brought on record the contradictions which are there in the said police statement viz-a-viz his deposition in the Court. It was then permissible for MSRTC to prove the said contradictions through the Investigating Officer i.e. RW3. Since Glen Ticlo has not been confronted with the statements recorded in said police statement, the same cannot be looked into and nothing can be proved based on the alleged police statement made by him. The above is clear from Sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. RW2, Anand Ganpat Maharidi, who was working as conductor on the said bus, at the time of accident, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the bus was driven by Adikrao at a slow speed since he was climbing the slope and was on correct side of the road and after the accident the bus fell on its left hand side. He stated that prior to the accident the bus had taken a stop at Khed Burna for the purpose of checking the bus and at that time there was no problem to the bus inasmuch as both the head lights were working. However, the cross-examination of this witness discloses that he was sitting on the last seat near the rear door and from his position, admittedly he could not see as to what was happening ahead. He admitted that from the position where he was sitting he could not see if the headlight of the bus was working or otherwise. He could not say whether the right head light of the bus was working at the time of accident or not. According to him the bus was driven at a speed of 25 to 30 k.m. per hour. If that be the case, in my considered opinion, the driver could have easily stopped the bus on the road forthwith and then there would have been no occasion for the bus to have turned turtle and fallen down on the left side of the road, with front wheels dismantled. The said conductor does not even know that the driver and the occupants of the Tatamobile were flung out and that the driver had died on the spot. The said conductor does not even know that the driver and the occupants of the Tatamobile were flung out and that the driver had died on the spot. According to him, he learnt about the death of driver of Tatamobile only after all the passengers of the bus were removed and sent in another S.T. Bus. The conductor of the bus namely Anand Maharidi is not reliable and in any case he is of no use to MSRTC. 21. The driver of the bus namely Adikrao deposed that he was driving the said bus from Mumbai to Kandalgaon and it was raining and he was taking his bus up the slope from the left side of the road and that speed of the bus was 25 to 30 k.m. per hour. He stated that Tatamobile vehicle coming down the slope came towards the wrong side and dashed against his bus. According to him, the Tatamobile vehicle was being driven at a speed of about 70 to 80 k.m. per hour and as a result of the dash given by the said Tatamobile his bus turned turtle on left side of the road due to which both the front tyres got dismantled. As already stated above, if the said heavy vehicle, which had become heavier due to passengers sitting in it, was being driven at a slow speed of 25 to 30 k.m. per hour, the driver could have easily stopped the same and in that case even if the Tatamobile, which is considerably of lower weight, had given dash to the bus, the bus would have never gone out side the road towards the left side and fallen after having turned turtle and further with front wheels dismantled. The nature of the evidence adduced by MSRTC is such that no reliance can be placed upon the same. Comparing the evidence produced by the MSRTC with that produced by the claimants, the evidence produced by the claimants is far superior. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that it is rather difficult to accept the case of the respondents that the bus was driven at a slow speed. Comparing the evidence produced by the MSRTC with that produced by the claimants, the evidence produced by the claimants is far superior. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that it is rather difficult to accept the case of the respondents that the bus was driven at a slow speed. The learned Tribunal has observed that the bus was a heavy vehicle unlike Tata mobile and it is rather difficult to accept that the bus at a slow speed 30-40 k.m. per hour should fall 10 feet below after turning turtle with the front wheels dismantling on account of impact by a lighter motor vehicle like the Tatamobile. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that the bus was driven at a very fast speed and that it could not be controlled which resulted in its tuning turtle and falling 10 feet below and dismantling of front wheels. 22. I therefore hold that it has been amply proved that the driver of the said bus of MSRTC was rash and negligent in driving the same and it is he who caused the accident and consequently the death of Bona D'Souza and grievous injuries to Mr. Benedict Joseph Nazareth. 23. The next question for determination is whether the compensation awarded in both the cases is excessive and whether it is required to be reduced. 24. Mr. Avelino D'Souza, brother of the deceased, deposed that his deceased brother was 30 years of age at the time of accident and was employed as a site supervisor-cum-driver with Kylzer Constructions at Mapusa and was earning Rs 3000/- per month and was also getting other allowances. He produced the certificate which was initially marked 'X' for identification. In his cross-examination, said Avelino D'Souza stated that he is having the driving license of his brother and that his brother had a valid driving license. It is an admitted fact that at the time of the accident the deceased was driving the Tatamobile belonging to Glen Ticlo. Avelino has stated in the cross-examination that Glen Ticlo was one of the partners of Kylzer Construction. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working with Kylzer Constructions as site supervisor-cum-driver. In his cross-examination, Mr. Benedict Nazareth deposed that to his knowledge, the said driver of Tatamobile vehicle had gone on the same route at least 50 times. Avelino has stated in the cross-examination that Glen Ticlo was one of the partners of Kylzer Construction. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not working with Kylzer Constructions as site supervisor-cum-driver. In his cross-examination, Mr. Benedict Nazareth deposed that to his knowledge, the said driver of Tatamobile vehicle had gone on the same route at least 50 times. M. Nazareth deposed that the said driver was sent on several occasions by the company which is his client, to Mumbai for its transactions. 25. Mr. Glen Ticlo deposed that the driver Bona was working with him as a driver-cum-supervisor for about 5 years prior to the accident and he used to pay Rs 3,000/- per month to him. He was shown the certificate which was marked as 'X' for identification and he identified his signature on the same. Mr. Ticlo further stated that the said Bona had driven on Goa-Bombay route at least 70-80 times in connection with their business. He stated that the said Tatamobile was belonging to him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is doing construction business and also running a petrol pump and is maintaining a pay register for his staff. However, he could not say if the name of the driver Bona was recorded. in the pay register. He stated that he used to make payment to Bona in cash. He was directed to produce the pay register and vouchers. On the next date. Mr. Ticlo produced three pay vouchers which have been marked as Exhibit 16-colly which disclose that salary Rs 3000/- was being paid to the deceased by cheque. There is, therefore, more than sufficient evidence on record to establish that the income of the deceased was at least Rs 3000/- per month. Thus, the deceased was earning about Rs 36,000/- per year. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and has held that the annual net earning would be Rs 24,000/-. Since, the claimant was about 52 years old, multiplier of II as mentioned in Schedule II of the M.V. Act for the age group of the said claimant was used and it has been held that the claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs 2,64,000/-. An amount Rs 2,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses, which cannot at all be said to be excessive. Mr. An amount Rs 2,000/- has been awarded towards funeral expenses, which cannot at all be said to be excessive. Mr. Avelino D'Souza deposed that they had to pay Rs 5,000/- for transportation of the dead body from Khed to Goa and Rs 25,000/- for funeral and other expenses. Admittedly, the accident had occurred at Khed and there is no dispute that the deceased was a resident of Goa. Naturally therefore, the dead body had to be transported from Khed to Goa. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum Rs 2500/- towards the transportation of dead body. Merely because there is no documentary evidence for the said expenditure, it cannot be held that such expenditure was not incurred. Further, an amount of Rs 10,000/- has been awarded towards pain and sufferings which in no circumstances can be held to be excessive. 26. In the circumstances above, the total compensation of Rs 2,78,500/- awarded to the claimants in Claim Petition No. 85 of 1997, in my considered view, is just and reasonable and there is no question of any reduction from the same. 27. Coming to Claim Petition No. 84 of 1997, the claimant is admittedly a practicing Advocate which fact is not denied. He deposed that after the accident he regained consciousness after five days in Walawalkar Hospital in Chiplun. He had suffered multiple injuries. There was fracture to his skull and deep wound to his forehead which had to be stitched to the extent of 29 stitches. He also sustained fracture on six chest ribs on the left side and his lung was ruptured on account of the fracture to the ribs resulting in lung collapse. There was fracture to his left foot and his left ankle was dislocated. His nose was cut and part of his right ear was amputated. There were glass pieces to all over his face and his chest. The injuries led to a loss of large quantity of blood thereby resulting in drip of Hemoglobin count. Therefore, blood had to be given by way of emergency transfusion. Mr. Nazareth deposed that he remained in the hospital for 19 days and was discharged on 9th November because his family was greatly inconvenienced on account of the distance from the house. He deposed that he was shifted from the hospital to his residence on a stretcher in an ambulance. Mr. Nazareth deposed that he remained in the hospital for 19 days and was discharged on 9th November because his family was greatly inconvenienced on account of the distance from the house. He deposed that he was shifted from the hospital to his residence on a stretcher in an ambulance. He stated that prior to his discharge he underwent surgery for collapsed lung as well as for the fracture and the dislocations of the leg and the ankle. He deposed that after he was shifted to Goa he continued follow up treatment at Goa Medical College where he underwent another operation on 28th November and he remained in Goa Medical College for three days and thereafter was confined to the house for more than three months. According to him, on account of rib fracture and lung collapse he could not move either with crutches or with a walker and therefore had to be attended by a qualified attendant for a period of two months. He deposed that during all his visits to Goa Medical College i.e. 10 visits in all, he had to be taken in a sleeping position in an ambulance. He deposed that he spent about Rs 30,000/- at Walawalkar Hospital for purchase of medicines, diagnostic tests and hospital stay and an additional sum of Rs 3000/- for his treatment at Goa Medical College. He spent a sum of Rs 6,000/- for transportation to Goa Medical College and further Rs 6,000/- for male nurse attending to him. According to him he could not attend to his office for a period of more than three months and being a professional, lost a great deal of time and clientele. He deposed that his wife had to take one month unpaid leave from Goa Medical College for which she lost a sum of Rs 5,000/-. He deposed that he had to be brought to Goa in an ambulance which was equipped with respirator on account of lung collapse for which he had to pay Rs 10,000/-. He produced 62 bills alongwith prescriptions for a sum of Rs 22,755.81 paise and they are on record as Exhibit AW1/A Colly. He produced the medical papers of Goa Medical College as Exhibit AW1/B and of Walawalkar Hospital, Chiplun as Exhibit AW1/C. He deposed that his monthly income at the relevant time was about Rs 5,000/-. He produced 62 bills alongwith prescriptions for a sum of Rs 22,755.81 paise and they are on record as Exhibit AW1/A Colly. He produced the medical papers of Goa Medical College as Exhibit AW1/B and of Walawalkar Hospital, Chiplun as Exhibit AW1/C. He deposed that his monthly income at the relevant time was about Rs 5,000/-. A perusal of cross-examination of Nazareth reveals that the fact that he was earning Rs 5,000/- per month has not at all been denied. 28. Merely because Mr. Nazareth had not given the details of medical bills in the Claim Petition but had generally referred to them as medical bills, that would not mean that he had not incurred expenses towards the said purchase of medicines. Though he has not produced transportation bills of visits to Goa Medical College, however, the history sheet of Goa Medical College shows the details of various visits to the said hospital. In my view, the evidence on injuries sustained by Nazareth, expenditure incurred by him and on his monthly income, etc., is not much shaken in the crossexamination. 29. AW3 Dr. Zelio D'mello had examined Mr. Nazareth and according to him he had sustained multiple contused lacerated wounds over the scalp, face and ear, multiple fracture ribs 1-6 left side, fracture of the left Tibia Fibula with ankle dislocation and Concussive Head Injury. He stated that open reduction and internal fixation of the left ankle fracture was done on 21/10/1996 and the patient discharged on 09/11/1996 with advise to attend the Out Patient Department for follow up and was ambulatory without support from 29/01/1997 and that the permanent disability according to ALIMCO scale is 20%. The certificate of Dr. D'mello is at Exhibit 35. In his cross-examination, the Doctor stated that the percentage of disability was assessed according to the limitation of movement at the concerned joints. There is no reason why the Doctor should falsely depose in favour of the claimant. Such a permanent disability would always affect the claimant mentally, who is an advocate and who has to be alert every time. 30. In the circumstances above, an amount of Rs 1,52,000/- awarded as compensation to the claimant, Mr. Nazareth, cannot be held to be excessive. Such a permanent disability would always affect the claimant mentally, who is an advocate and who has to be alert every time. 30. In the circumstances above, an amount of Rs 1,52,000/- awarded as compensation to the claimant, Mr. Nazareth, cannot be held to be excessive. An amount of Rs 22,775.81 only has been awarded towards medical expenses, for which there are medical bills on record, Rs 15,000/- only towards loss of income for three months, for which absence from work, there are medical records, Rs 2000/- only towards local transportation, Rs 10,000/- for transportation from Chiplun Hospital, Rs 2,200/- towards attendant charges; and an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- only has been awarded towards permanent disability. There is nothing granted which can be said to be arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable or unjustifiable. The above, in my view, is just compensation. 31. The impugned judgment and award in both the Claim Petitions is in accordance with the settled principles of law based on proper appraisal of evidence on record, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. No interference with the same is called for. 32. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Appeals stand disposed of. Appeals dismissed.