Judgment:
M.W. Deo, J.
1. This appeal is directed against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, ordering a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and interest at 12 per cent from the date of application in respect of a case of permanent disability due to fracture of femur of the right leg in a motor accident.
2. It is not in dispute that on 28.6.1979 at 7.00 p.m. the respondent-claimant Kiran, aged about 22 years, was standing by the side of the road awaiting a rickshaw when tractor bearing registration No. CPE 7878 owned by the appellant and driven by his servant hit Kiran and her sister Sunita.
3. Both Sunita and Kiran filed claims contending that they suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor. We are concerned with the case of Kiran only, in as much as no appeal has been filed against an award in favour of Sunita.
4. The question of negligence on the part of the driver, who was a servant of the owner (appellant), is not disputed and indeed could not be disputed for reasons more than one. Firstly, the evidence adduced in the case left no doubt that the driver was negligent in as much as he lost control of the vehicle which left the road and hit the two girls standing by the side of the road near a telephone pole. Secondly, the question has become irretrievable on account of the fact that the owner and driver have not filed appeal against this finding in the case of Sunita.
5. The main question raised in the appeal by the owner-appellant is one of quantum awarded to Kiran.
6. Kiran was awarded Rs. 10,000/- on account of expenses of treatment. The evidence that Kiran was a resident of Vidisha and had come to Indore where she suffered accident and fracture of the right femur, was treated in M.Y. Hospital, Indore, and was discharged at her own request for being treated at Vidisha, is amply borne out by oral and documentary evidence on record. Kiran has pledged her oath to say that she was treated as indoor patient in Vidisha for two months. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that records of the Vidisha hospital and cash memos of medicines, etc., have not been produced or proved. It is now settled law that evidence has to be appreciated by keeping in mind the experience of life and accompanying undisputed facts. Now in view of the aforesaid documentary evidence on record of M.Y. Hospital produced by Kiran, it is beyond the pale of controversy that she had suffered fracture of femur of right thigh. That is the nature of the injury. If the Tribunal believed Kiran's oath that she was required to undergo treatment as indoor patient for two months for treatment of the injury of this nature, the Tribunal cannot be said to be incorrect nor can the finding of expenses of Rs. 10,000/- for such treatment deserve any interference in the aforesaid circumstances.
7. The next question raised was about awarding Rs. 30,000/- as general damages on account of pain and suffering as well as permanent disability. It is to be noted that the Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs. 30,000 as a compendious sum for both items stated above. It is in evidence on record that Kiran had suffered a fracture of the right femur resulting in shortening of leg by one inch, wasting of muscles and functional permanent disability of 30 per cent on account of the said fracture. Now Kiran was a young girl of 22 years with the question of marriage lying in front of her. Considering all these aspects, award of Rs. 30,000/- as a compendious amount apart from expenses of treatment cannot be said to be unreasonable by any manner or means.
8. The interest of 12 per cent from the date of petition is also in order.
9. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal directed against quantum. The appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances no orders as to costs.