ORDER
P.C. Agarwal, J.
1. Appellant is a juvenile of 16 years of age who had filed this Accident claim through his father as his next friend on 30.12.2001. The appellant as a pillion rider was travelling on motor cycle No. MP/30/JE/1308 driven by Atul Raina (A.W. 2). Car No MP/09/HS/2756 driven by Nirmal Kumar (R-1) and owned by Amar Dandwani (R-2) dashed the motor cycle injuring both Atul Raina (A.W. 2) and the appellant. Driver and owner of the car did not contest the Accident claim. Tribunal held car driver guilty of negligence. It held liability of car owner and Insurance Company also proved, On all these points there has been no controversy between the parties.
2. In this appeal by the claimant the only dispute has been regarding quantum of compensation awarded. The Tribunal below has allowed Rs. 32,360/- as price of medicines, etc., Rs. 5,000/- for mental and physical pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disability due to restriction in knee and ankle joint, in all Rs. 62,360/- with interest @ 6% per annum since the date of claim i.e., 15.5.2002 with Advocate’s fee Rs. 3,000/-.
3. MLC report Ex. P. 3 read as follows:
Pain and swelling lower and right leg, difficulty in movement? Fracture on lower end of both tibia and fibula, injury will be confirmed by X-ray of right leg, injury caused by blunt and heavy object, duration within 24 hours, nature will be decided after X-ray.
As per X-ray Ex. P. 4, appellant had fractures of both tibia and fibula on lower 1/3rd of right leg.
4. Appellant was admitted in District Hospital, Ujjain on 30.12.2001 vide-Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. He remained admitted between 31.12.2001 to 12.1.2002 in S.S. Hospital and Research Centre, Ujjain as per discharge certificate Ex. P. 8. He was operated upon and an iron rod was inserted for correction of the fractures. He has submited bills and vouchers for purchase of medicines and bills of the doctor, and the nursing home etc. from Exs. P. 10 to P. 14, P. 17 to P. 23 and P. 27 to P. 68, it in all totalling to Rs. 57,080.75. The learned Tribunal below has disallowed claim for an amount of Rs. 11,900/- vide Ex. P. 19, Rs. 850/- vide Ex. P. 33, Rs. 4,752/-vide Ex. P. 41, Rs. 722.80 vide Ex. P. 47 and Rs. 497.50 vide Ex. P. 50. I, proceed to examine validity of the reasons given by the Tribunal below for rejection of these claims.
5. Ex. P/19, a bill, for Rs. 11,900/.- has been rejected merely on the ground that copy of the cheque or its counter foil has not been produced by the appellant. Yet either the appellant had already paid the amount or he had to pay the same afterwards. Thus, this bill should have been allowed. Ex. P/33, bill has been unsupported by medical prescription. It did not bear the date of issue for purchases in of medicines, in front part of it, medicines worth Rs. 209.63 were entered on back or reverse part of the same certain other medicines were written. The chemists generally do not issue bills written on both sides of the same as they maintain carbon copies of the same also. Thus, the bill is not proper. Rejection of bill Ex. P/41 for Rs. 4,752/- which had been unsupported by any medical prescription and showing purchase of six scotchoest, at a time had been rightly rejected. Ex. P/47, bill for Rs. 722.80 and Ex. P/50 bill for Rs. 497.55 have been rejected in absence of any medical prescription in support. In my considered opinion, the view taken by the learned Tribunal below could not be said to be either unjust or unreasonable in respect of these bills and thus, no interference in such finding is warranted. Thus, enhancement of only Rs. 11,900/- is allowed as medical expenses.
6. As it has been a case of fractures of both bones tibia and fibula or the right leg, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- could be awarded for physical and mental pain and sufferings. Thus, enhancement of an amount of Rs. 5,000/-is also allowed. Dr. Arun Marothi (P.W. 4) has examined the appellant on 29.1.2003 and had advised taking X-ray photograph. On his advice X-ray photograph was taken vide X-ray plate Ex. P/67-A. The fracture had united, the movement of knee and ankle were normal as per the report Ex. P/67. The doctor was positive that after the elapse of time this disability may be reduced. Thus, an award of Rs. 7,500/- for disability and restriction of movement in knee and ankle joint could not be faulted. However, the appellant is further entitled to get an amount of Rs. 6,000/- deposited vide Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/16 as tuition fees for computer education etc. it is not unnatural that a young boy may continue his normal academic studies even after being injured in the Accident but it is not expected that he would continue to attend the extra tuition course also. Thus, the appellant could be believed when he deposes that he had to forego these courses even after deposit of tuition fees for these courses. He is entitled to get back that amount of Rs. 6,000/-. Thus, in my considered opinion, the appellant is entitled to enhancement of Rs. 11,900/-plus Rs. 5,000/- plus Rs. 6,000/- i.e., Rs. 22,900/-.with interest @ 9% per annum besides the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal below.
7. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part. Respondent shall pay an additional compensation of Rs. 22,900/- with interest @ 9% per annum since the date of claim i.e., 15.5.2002 besides the amount already awarded by the Tribunal below.