JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 15.1.1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT Case No. 7 of 1989. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,473 along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of petition, for the injuries sustained by him.
2. The fact of the case lies in narrow compass. The claim petition was filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act on the allegation that on 19.9.1988 the claimant was travelling in a Tempo No. UMA-9203 and was going from Agra to Kuberpur and when the Tempo reached Ban Behari Hotel, Agra Tundla Road, a bus belonging to the present appellant bearing registration No. UGE 607 coming from Sore to Agra dashed against a Tractor No. UTA 5246 and subsequently colluded with the tempo in which the claimant was travelling. The bus was being driven at such a high speed that it smashed the tractor and the tempo. As a result of the accident claimant sustained severe injuries.
3. The petition was contested by the present appellant by denying the allegations contained in the claim petition.
4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the Bus by its driver. It estimated compensation at Rs. 19,473.
5. Challenging, the aforesaid award, present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant made two submissions in support of appeal. It was submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently is factually and legally incorrect. Secondly, the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal was also challenged.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant I do not find any merit in the appeal. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon the statement of eye witness namely Mr. Pawan Kumar, sitting in a Hotel at about 9.30 p.m. and was taking tea. He has state that the bus in question coming from Tundla hit the tractor on the wrong sided and there after hit the Tempo in which the claimant was travelling. The impact of the accident was of such magnitude that the tractor and the tempo were smashed, the Tribunal has accepted the version of PW 2 as correct.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any error committed by the Tribunal in appreciation of the evidence. The Tribunal while recording the finding on rash and negligent driving of the bus has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The said finding on the basis of record is perfectly justified and is here by confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 19,473 as compensation. The claimant was hospitalized for a period of six months and suffered damages due to his confinement in the hospital. The Tribunal has further found that the claimant could not prove that on account of injuries received by him, he has become permanently disabled and is unable to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000 towards loss of income for six months and Rs. 5,473 towards cost of the medicine and Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering. The aforesaid sums cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary.
8. In the result there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.