S.B. Wad, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by MCD against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 14-11-73 in which the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,750/- as compensation to respondent Suman Chopra. Cross objections are filed by the respondent claiming that the compensation should be raised to Rs. 50,000/-.
2. The accident took place on 5-3-70 near the traffic point, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent was a college student and for going to the college she was proceeding towards Shadipur Bus Depot to get the bus. When she was on the left side of the road on a kutcha footpath a refuge truck No. DLL 3128 belonging to the MCD came from behind and took a sudden turn, knocking the respondent. Her right foot was crushed by the left front wheel of the truck. She remained in hospital 5-3-70 to 10-4-70. Two fingers of her toe, viz. 4th and 5th were required to be amputated because of gangrene. The other bones of the right foot were also dislocated. She has suffered permanent disability. Her study and other curricular activities were seriously handicapped because of the injuries and her prospects for marriage were also greatly affected. Mr. Vinod Kumar, PW 6 and Mr. Rajinder Nath PW 12 are the eye witnesses who have supported the respondent's case. The appellants have not produced any independent evidence.
3. I am taken through the evidence of the eye witnesses and I fully agree with the Tribunal that the version given by the said eye witnesses is truthful and fully corroborates the respondent's case. The Tribunal has lightly observed that it was incumbent on the driver of the vehicle to slow down his vehicle before taking the turn. The Tribunal has also correctly observed that the fact that the truck stopped at a distance of 10 to 15 yards after the accident is sufficient to show that it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. I, thereforee, confirm the findings of the Tribunal as regards the liability of the MCD for the negligence of its driver.
4. Dr. M.D. Bindal PW 2 has stated in his evidence that the respondent had sustained dislocation of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th meta carpal joints. It is also proved that the lateral toes were required to be amputated. It is clear from this medical evidence that the respondent has sustained permanent physical disability.
5. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the pain and agony undergone by the respondent. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 5,000/-for the probable future loss by reason of the incapacity. The Tribunal has noted that reduced prospects of marriage is a real matrimonial loss and should be compensated. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 750/- as special damages for nourishment expenses as the respondent was confined to bed for about 5 months.
6. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the pain and agony is, to my mind, inadequate. It is not merely that the pain and agony is to be compensated but the total effect of the injuries on the handicapped and the difficulties created for the young girl in her future life, that has also to be looked into while awarding the compensation. I, thereforee, raise this sum of compensation to Rs. 15,000/-. As for the loss of marriage prospects, I maintain the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not allow any medical expenses because no regular accounts were maintained. But, considering the fact that the respondent was confined to bed for about 5 months, I award a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards medical expenses. It is not uncommon that people do not maintain regular accounts regarding medical treatment and the medicines received. As regards the compensation of Rs. 750/- for special diet, I do not think that any addition is necessary. The respondent is thereforee entitled to Rs. 22,750/- towards compensation. She is also entitled to six per cent simple interest from the date of application till the date of payment.
7. Payment of compensation and interest should be made to the respondent within 3 months from today. A cheque for amount of compensation and interest should be made out in the name of the respondent and be deposited with the Registrar of this Court who shall make the disbursement to the respondent. If the MCD has already deposited the award amount, as directed by this Court on 3-4-74, and the same is withdrawn by the respondent credit shall be given to the said amount both in matters of compensation and interest thereon. If the respondent has furnished any security that will stand discharged.
8. The appeal of the MCD is dismissed. The cross objections are allowed.