S.S. Sodhi, J.
1. The challenge here is to the award of Rs. 72,548/- as compensation to the claimant Ved Vyas for the injuries suffered by him, when while travelling on his scooter (DHS-2817), he met with an accident with the car (CHY-73). This accident occurred on June 9, 1975 and it was the finding of the Tribunal that it had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver.
2. In Appeal, a half hearted attempt was made to question the finding of negligence recorded against the car driver. The material on record, however, affords, no occasion for sustaining any challenge thereto. It was the case of the claimant that the car had come from behind and bit into his scooter. The car driver admitted the accident, but came-forth with no counter version of how it had occurred. The accident was deposed to not only by the claimant, when he appeared as PW. 9, but also by PW. 7 Kewal Kishan and PW. 8 Devi Rani, who both corroborated him and gave a consistant account of the occurrence namely, that the car came from behind and hit into the scooter. The car driver RW. 1 Keshav Dass, on the other hand deposed that the scooter had suddenly turned to its right and this is what led to the accident. No such plea has been taken by him in his return or was it suggested to any of the eye witnesses. In this situation, the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence must obviously be upheld.
3. Turning to the compensation awarded to the claimant, it was sought to be contended that the Tribunal bad erred in awarding Rs. 36,000/- as compensation for loss of income to the claimant. Counsel could, however, point to no flaw in this finding, in the face of the evidence on record, relating to the income of the claimant and the nature and the duration of the in capacity of the claimant as a result of the injuries suffered by him. The evidence from the Income-Tax Department establishes that the income of the deceased after deduction of taxes was over Rs. 13,000/- per year. On this basis, the amount awarded can by no means be said to be excessive.
4. Next it was sought to be contended that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- had been awarded, as the amount paid by the claimant to Doctors at Ludhiana for treatment at his house. It was sought to be argued that this amount had been wrongly awarded, as it was included in the amount of Rs. 17,548/-, which had been awarded as compensation to the claimant for the expenses actually incurred by him. Counsel, failed to, point to any material on record to substantiate this argument. Even otherwise no reduction in the amount awarded as compensation was warranted when considering the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the claimant a sum of only Rs. 6,000/- had been awarded for shortening and deformity of the right leg and Rs. 10,000/- for pain and agony of the repeated operations that the claimant had to undergo.
5. The impugned award of the Tribunal is accordingly upheld and affirmed and this appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-.