Malik, J.
(1) (ORAL).-THE appellant has made a grievance against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in his favor and awarding a sum of Rs. i2,270 as compensation. The grievance of the appellant is that. after coming to the conclusion that the appellant had suffered a permanent disability and after finding that the appellant had to be hospitalised for a long time and had suffered both physically, mentally and monetarily the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 which he had originally demanded.
(2) The respondents have also filed cross-objection-, as, according to them, the appellant had not suffered any permanent disability and the Tribunal was wrong in awarding compensation for permanent disability.
(3) I have gone with Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the 'appellant, .through the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and on an assessment of evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident in which the appellant was involved was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 driver and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. The short story is that on 30th of March 1968 at shout 6.30 p.m. while the appellant was traveling on the carrier of a bicycle which was being paddled by. one Anand Mohan (P.W. 6) he got injured as a result of an .accident that took place with Car No. Dlf 8155 which was being driven rashly and negligently. The fact that this accident took place. and the injured was removed to the hospital in the same car by respondent No. 1 is not in dispute. All that to be considered by the court is as to whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The appellant as his own witness, Public Witness 6 Anand Mohan and Public Witness 4 Prem Kumar who is brother of the appellant have tendered evidence that respondent No, 1 ;it the time of the accident was driving the car rashly and negligently. Respondent No. 1, however. states that he was not driving rashly and negligently but admits that having suddenly found being faced with the cycle riders he did take a little turn towards the right. Now that apart, it is admitted that respondent No. 1 was prosecuted under section 338 Indian Penal Code . For rash and negligent driving in respect of this very incident and be was convicted in that case. There is hardly any scope, therfore, for any other conclusion than the one suggested by the appellant that at the time of accident the car was being driven rashly and negligently. There is no evidence in support of the proposition that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
(4) As would appear from the testimony of Dr. A. K.Gupta (P.W. 11) the appellant was under his treatment tight from 30th of March 1968 to 6th of May 1969. though most of the time he remained in his own house Dr. A.K.Gupta (P.W. 11) after recovery of the appellant found that there was shortening of leg by 1 c.m. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal allowed Rs. 10,000 on account of compensation for pain, shock, agony and permanent disability Rs. 2000 more were allowed on account of special nourishment and Rs. 270 on account of transport charges. .It was in this manner that a total sura of Rs. 12,270 was awarded as compensation.
(5) In my view, having satisfactorily dealt with the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, in my view, fell into an error of judgment by not awarding adequate and proper compensation. The appellant after this accident has definitely remained in pain for a number of months. Not only the appellant but his family members have also undergone a lot of anguish. There is evidence also that due to this accident the appellant has also lost one year of studies. In my view, thereforee, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 15,000 on account of permanent disability. He is also entitled to another lumpsum of Rs. 5000 on account of other expenses and mental shock and physical pain. Thus, a sum of Rs. 20,000 in my view, is a proper compensation in a case of this nature and would meet the ends of justice. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent annum on this amount from the date of claim till the date of final realisation. The compensation awarded shall be deposited by the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company before the Tribunal within one month from the date of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed and for the reasons stated above, the cross-objections of respondents are dismissed.