A.N. Verma, J.
1. These two appeals are disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same accident. Appeal No. 12 of 1979 arises out of claim petition filed on behalf of a minor Amitabh Buxi aged 9 a years through his father Gurdeep Singh Buxi while appeal No. 13 of 1979 arises out of claim petition No. 58 of 1976 filed by Anand Prakash Bhatia. The insurer has filed these appeals against award of compensation amounting to Rs. 28500/- to Amitabh Buxi and Rs. 11700/- to Anand Prakash Bhatia.
2. The relevant facts are that on 1st August, 1976 Anand Prakash Bhatia was going on a scooter from Buxi Park on the high way towards Bijnor. Amitabh Buxi was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. A truck No. UPN 3675 which was coming from the opposite direction dashed against the rear portion of the scooter on account of which both Anand Prakash Bhatia and Amitabh Buxi were thrown off and fell on the road.
3. The aforesaid claim petitions were filed against the insurer, appellant in these two appeals, as well as the owner and driver of the truck. In the claim petition of Amitabh Buxi a sum of Rs. 32400/- was claimed as total compensation while in the claim petition of Anand Prakash Bhatia a sum of Rs. 27250/- was claimed in all as compensation.
4. The case of the claimants was that the accident took place entirely on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck as a consequence of which they suffered multiple injuries resulting in some permanent disability also.
5. The claim petitions were contested by the insurer and not by the owner or driver of the truck. The insurer disputed the allegation of the claimants both as regards whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver as well as to the quantum of compensation claimed in the two petitions. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on the record awarded a total compensation of Rs. 28500/- to Amitabh Buxi. This amount was made up of Rs. 20000/- which was granted to Amitabh on account of permanent disability in bis left leg, Rs. 5000/- fot mental suffering a pain, Rs. 2000/- as loss in one year's study caused by the accident and Rs. 1500/- on account of medical treatment and expenses.
6. The compensation of Rs. 11700/- awarded to Anand Prakash Bhatia was made up of Rs. 5000/- on account of pain and suffering, Rs. 2000/- as representing damage to the scooter, Rs. 4000/- on account of supposed incapacity in his left leg and Rs. 700/- on account of medical treatment and expenses.
7. I shall take up the case of Amitabh Buxi first. The learned Counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that on the evidence on the record which was one way only, he would not be able to question the correctness of the decision of the court below on the issue whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck. His main contention, however, was that there was no justification for granting Rs. 20000/- on account of permanent disability said to have been caused to Amitabh Buxi. It was urged that having regard to the nature of injuries and its after-effects it could not be said that the claimants had sustained any permanent disability.
8. I am unable to agree. The relevant injury caused to Amitabh Buxi consisted of a contusion 12 cm x 2 cm running obliquely from upward down ward on the front of the left thigh which was found to have been fractured The medical reports on the record consist of the opinion of Dr. A.S Gaur' who has also appeared as APW. 3, Dr. Sandhu Professor and Head of the department of the Medical College Dhera Dr. Y.N. Agarwal. and Dr. N.R. Bhatia According to Dr. Gaur's opinion this injury has resulted in mal-union of the thigh bone consisting of angulation as a result of which Amitabh Buxi's left leg has become permanently shortened by 1 cm than the right leg. This opinion has been endorsed by Dr. N.R. Bhatia APW. 4.
9. It is not difficult to visualise that such an injury is bound to affect the future prospects of employment of Amitabh Buxi. The injury is of permanent character and is directly attributable to the accident. Amitabh Buxi's father has been examined and he has stated that he was planning to send him to the Army but as a result of this disability which is of a permanent character, he cannot be sent to that career.
10. The finding of the court below, therefore, that the above injury has resulted in the permanent disability, seems correct and calls for no interference.
11. The learned Counsel also attempted to submit that the Tribunal feel into error in awarding Rs. 20000/- on account of the aforesaid supposed disability. In support of it, the learned Counsel cited a decision reported in in 1977 Accidents Claims Journal 403, Faxilka Dabwali Transport Co Pvt Ltd v. Madan Lal.
12. I find no merit in the Above contention. In my opinion having regard to the disability from which Amitabh Buxi shall be suffering for the rest of his life, a sum of Rs. 20000/- con by no means be regarded as excessive. As mentioned above as a result of this disability he cannot join the Army which career had been chosen for him by his father Even n seeking employment elsewhere this physical disability will continue to stand in the way of the boy.
13. As regards the decision cited by the learned Counsel 1 find that in that case the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 7000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 12000/-by the High Court in appeal in respect of an injury which consisted of amputation of a leg of the claimant. The award in that case was rendered on 29-3-1964. In the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court was not wrong in enhancing the comDensatinn from Rs. 7000/-. Rs. 12000/- From that, however, it cannot be decid that he award of Rs. 20000/- in the present case becomes ipso facto excessive The value of many has declined considerably since the award was rendered in that case in 1964. In the circumstances a compensation of Rs. 20000/- on account of permanent disability of the nature mentioned above cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified.
14. There is, therefore, no substance in the First Appeal From order No. 12 of 1979 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. Coming to the appeal of Anand Prakash Bhatia learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified m awarding Rs. 4000/- on account of a supposed incapacity cause to him. The learned Counsel also challenged the propriety of the Tribunal awarding Rs. 5000/- as compensation for the alleged pain and suffering caused to the claimant.
16. Having beard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in so far as the award of compensation on account of the alleged incapacity caused to Anand Prakash Bhatia is concerned, is well founded and has to be accepted. The decision of the Tribunal as regards the compensation on account of pain and suffering, however, seems right and proper.
17. The injury which is stated to have resulted in some incapacity has been described in the injury memo Ext. 2 as a lacerated wound 15 cm X 2 cm muscle deep on front of left thigh middle. Dr. Y.N. Pandey who was examined on behalf of the claimant has categorically stated that none of the injuries sustained by Bhatia could result in any permanent disability. He has also stated that he was hospitalised for a day or two only and thereafter the treatment was carried on at Bhatia's residence. He has further said that but for the fact that Bhatia may have experienced some difficulty in going upstairs his joint was quite normal. The only evidence on the basis of which the court below has awarded Rs. 4000/- as compensation for some supposed incapacity caused to the claimant's leg is to the effect that he experienced some difficulty in going upstairs. On this evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4000/- allegedly for ''some incapacity caused to his leg.'
18. The above conclusion of the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable. The medical evidence led by the claimant himself was quite clear on the point. Dr. A.N. Agarwal categorically admitted that none of the injuries sustained by the claimant could result in permanent disability. The injury on the left thigh was only muscle deep and on the evidence it is proved that the same has heeled up in course of time without leaving any trace of disability. The temporary difficulty experienced by Bhatia in climbing the stairs could not be characterised as incapacity. The medical evidence does not indicate that the lacerated wound suffered by the claimant, which was only muscle deep could possibility have resulted in any kind of incapacity of a permanant character. For the temporary difficulty or suffering the Tribunal had already awarded Rs. 5000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. There was hence no scope for awarding any additional or further compensation for the difficulty which the claimant experienced in climbing the stairs during the process of heeling. The award, therefore, in so for as compensation for some supposed incapacity is concerned is hence entirely unjustified.
19. The result is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced by a sum of Rs. 4000/-.
20. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of pain and suffering, the learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to support this contention that the same was unjustified or excessive. There is sample evidence on the record that as a result of the accident the claimant suffered several injuries and that he continued to remain under medical treatment for nearly 1 1/2 months. The claimant must, therefore, have suffered boh pain and suffering in regard to which the compensation has rightly been assessed at an amount of Rs. 5000/-. The amount is by no means excessive. In the result this appeal is liable to be allowed to the extent of Rs. 4000/.
21. The suit of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that whereas First Appeal From order No. 12 of 1979 fails and is dismissed with costs to the claimants-respondents. First Appeal From Order No. 13 of 1979 succeeds in part and is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal to Anand Prakash Bhatia is reduced by Rs. 4000/-. The parties shall be entitled to costs in proportion to their success and failure in this appeal.