JUDGMENT
N.C. Kochhar, J.
1. The facts giving rise to the appeal and the cross-objections against the award dated December” 17, 1985, passed by Mr. Jagat Singh, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota, are as under:
On the morning of 7th April, 1982, at about 9.30 a.m., respondent Kishan Lal was going on scooter at Gumanpura Road near Poolia at Kota. At that time jeep, bearing No. RRR 8750, which was owned by the appellant No. 1, State of Rajasthan and was being driven by Vishnu Dutt, driver, came from the opposite direction and there was an accident between the scooter and the jeep. Respondent fell down from the scooter. In the accident his left foot was fractured and he also received some abrasion injuries on the foot. He became unconscious and was removed to the hospital by AW 2, R.R Kapur. In the hospital Dr. Y.K. Sharma examined the respondent. The respondent remained admitted in the hospital for about 8 days and thereafter he took rest at his residence. He filed a petition claiming a sum of Rs. 42,000/-. This included the claim for compensation for injuries suffered by the respondent, the mental agony suffered by him, the amount of expenses towards scooter repairs, treatment and nourishment and the compensation for loss of business for a period of two months. He alleged that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver Vishnu Dutt. The claim was contested by the State. Since Vishnu Dutt (driver) had died, no written statement could be filed on his behalf. In the written statement filed by the State, it was denied that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving by Vishnu Dutt and it was pleaded that the respondent was driving his scooter at a fast speed and negligently and as such the accident took place. The claim was also resisted on the ground that it was excessive. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following four issues:
¼1½ vk;k nq?kZVuk thi ua- vkj vkj vkj 8750 ds pkyd }kjk thi dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykus dh otg ls gqbZ\
¼2½ vk;k nq?kZVuk [kqn izkFkhZ }kjk vius LdwVj dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykus dh otg ls gqbZ\
¼3½ izkFkhZ fdruh jkf’k crkSj {kfriwfrZ o fdlls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
¼4½ nknjlh\
3. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned trial court found that the cause of accident was because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver and not because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the respondent. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were thus decided in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. The learned trial court further found that the claimant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3,072.85 towards the charges for repair of scooter and that he was confined to bed and as such had suffered losses in his business, besides having spent the amount for his medicines and fruits etc. He was also held entitled to receive compensation for mental agony. The bills for the actual amount spent by the respondent on medicines and fruits were not produced in the learned trial court which after considering the period of confinement came to the conclusion that the respondent must have spent Rs. 1,000/- on this account. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion that the respondent can be said to have suffered a loss of Rs. 4,000/- on account of his inability to attend the business for the abovesaid period of two months. The learned trial court held that the respondent was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the appellant by way of pain and mental agony because of the fact that he suffered fracture and had also become incapable for the future. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court granted an award in the sum of Rs. 23,072.85 with costs assessed at Rs. 500/- in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed appeal and the respondent has filed the cross-objections claiming enhancement of the amount of award.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence produced by them before the learned trial court and in this regard the certified copies of the statements etc. were produced by the learned counsel for the respondent and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of learned trial court on issue Nos. 1 and 2. After going through the evidence produced by the parties on these issues, I am of the view that the learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep and not because of the negligence of the respondent. The finding of the learned trial court on these issues is, therefore, confirmed.
5. It has next been contended that the learned trial court had erred in granting compensation amounting to Rs. 23,072.85 to the respondent who had failed to produce the documentary evidence in support of his claim for medical bills and fruits as also in regard to his income. It is also contended that there is no evidence to show that the respondent had suffered permanent disability and that the learned trial court thus had erred in granting Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation for pain and mental agony.
6. The learned trial court has given good reasons for granting Rs. 1,000/- on account of expenses for medicines and fruits in absence of the vouchers/bills and in my view the conclusion of the learned trial court in regard to the loss of profit in business is also well founded and requires no interference. It is true that there is no evidence to the effect that the respondent suffered any permanent disability. The fact, however, remains that although the fracture appears to have been healed after the period of about two months, the respondent had, in a statement made after about 3Vi years of the date of occurrence, deposed that he was still having pain in his foot while moving about, in the ankle of the left foot and mentioning of this pain cannot be said to be a wrong fact. In these circumstances, although there is no disability of permanent nature but the mental agony and pain in regard to the injury to the ankle can also be said to be for not only the period when the respondent remained confined to bed but also for the subsequent period and as such in my view no case is made out for reducing the amount of compensation granted on this count. I am also of the view that the finding of the learned trial court on this count being reasonable, no case is made out even for enhancement of compensation.
7. Consequently, the appeal as well as the cross-objections fail and are dismissed.
8. There will be no order as to costs.