JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J.
1. These are two connected appeals directed against an award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Allahabad) dated 24th January, 1978. By this award the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs. 17,500/- to the claimant while rejecting the rest of the claims. The claimant has filed F.AF.O. No. 464 of 1978 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded, while F.A.F.O. No. 220 of 1978 has been filed by the assurance company on the ground that the amount awarded was excessive and the claimant was not entitled to any compensation at all. Since both these appeals arise out of the same award they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The fact about the accident and the injuries caused to the claimant are not seriously in dispute. The claimant was travelling along with his wife in tempo No. UPZ 6327 on 27th April, 1976 from Karchhana to Allahabad city. At about 10.30 a.m. the said tempo collided with another tempo UPP 7053 which was coming from the opposite direction. It is alleged that the tempo in which claimant was travelling was being driven rashly and negligently and as a result of the accident the claimant received grievous injuries and his left hand bone was fractured and he has been permanently incapacitated. His claim for Rs. 34,500/- was, therefore, put forward before the Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The petition was contested by the owner of the tempo and also by the assurance company. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the tempos. While computing the award of compensation the Tribunal, however, granted a decree for Rs. 17,500/- only. Against a claim of Rs. 4,000/- towards medical expenses only Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded. Similarly, against a claim of Rs. 10,000/- for mental shock, pain and agony only Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. For the loss of left hand Rs. 8,000/- has been awarded against a claim of Rs. 15,000/-. Loss of business has been assessed at Rs. 2,500/- and the claim of Rs. 2,000/- towards food, accommodation and treatment etc. has been denied. Feeling aggrieved the claimant has filed this appeal and it is contended that Tribunal has not properly assessed the compensation amount.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the compensation has not been correctly assessed. Appellant remained under treatment from the date of accident, i.e., 27.4.1976 until the date of the award when he was still continuing under treatment. His left hand has been broken and a piece of the bone is missing with the result that he has been totally disabled. The claimant remained under the treatment of as many as 4 doctors at different times including a plastic surgeon. He was under treatment in Lucknow Medical College as well as at Allahabad and the fact that the treatment continued for a prolonged period it must have resulted in a large amount of expense being incurred on travelling and medicine etc. apart from the doctor's fees. In the circumstances of the present case, therefore, the claim for Rs. 4,000/-towards medical expenses could not be said to be excessive.
5. Admittedly, the claimant was a petty businessman and on account of prolonged treatment he must have neglected his business resulting in loss to him. This loss has been computed at Rs. 2,500/- which in our opinion is a fair amount and we need not interfere with the same.
6. Against a claim of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental shock, pain and agony the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal, however, has not taken into account the fact that he was constantly under the treatment for about two years and the fact that he was under the treatment by four doctors, clearly shows that his injuries were not healing properly with the result that he must be under constant pain and agony on that account. In our opinion a sum of Rs. 8,000/- should meet the ends of justice under this head.
7. For the loss of left hand a sum of Rs. 8,000/- has been awarded which in our opinion is much too low. Considering the facts that the claimant was only 25 years of age and has more than 35 years of active life ahead of him the amount awarded appears to be inadequate. In our opinion the entire amount claimed, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- under this head should have been awarded.
8. In this manner instead of Rs. 17,500/-the claimant-appellant would be entitled to Rs. 29,500/- by way of compensation on account of injuries caused to him in the accident.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no justification for not awarding interest to the claimant. We also find no reason why the Tribunal should not have granted any interest in the instant case. Agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the appellant we award 9 per cent interest on the amount awarded from the date of petition till the payment.
10. The FAF.O. No. 220 of 1978 filed by the assurance company has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. We are informed that during the pendency of this appeal under the stay order granted by this court on 12.4.1978 a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was to be deposited by the assurance company for payment to the claimant. In case this amount has been deposited and the same has been withdrawn by the appellant the same will be adjusted from the amount payable to him.
12. FAF.O. No. 220 of 1978 is dismissed while FAF.O. No. 464 of 1978 is partly allowed and instead of Rs. 17,500/- the claimant-appellant will be entitled to Rs. 29,500/- along with 9 per cent interest from the date of the petition with proportionate costs against the assurance company.