Judgment

PUNCHHI, J.- This appeal and special leave petition are cross cases in nature and are directed against the judgment and order dated December 7, 1976 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad in F.A.O. No. 444 of 1976.

2. The facts established before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr and re-oriented before the High Court were that Randhir Singh while driving a tempo on October 10, 1972 on a road leading from Bulandshahr to Sikandrabad was hit head-on by a speeding truck owned by Ramesh Chandra, as a result of which his tempo was thrown into a nearby ditch whereby he sustained injuries on both his legs and his several bones were fractured as well. This was followed by lodging of a report at police station, Sikandrabad and putting the injured at District Hospital, Bulandshahr wherefrom he was removed to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi for final treatment. The permanent result was that a part of the right foot of Randhir Singh had to be amputated as his toes had become gangrenous.

3. Randhir Singh moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr seeking damages to the tune of Rs 1 lakh. The contestants being Ramesh Chandra the owner of the truck, its driver and the insurance company took various defences to negative the claim. The matter was focussed by the issues framed. The Tribunal by an elaborate and well reasoned order fixed negligence on the truck driver and held the injured entitled to compensation. In the measurement thereof the Tribunal took note of the age of the claimant to be 22 years and his expected income as a driver of a motor vehicle at a minimum rate of Rs 300 p.m., expected to be earned for at least 22 years in the coming. The figure thus arrived was at Rs 79,200 and that being lump sum payment determined a sum of Rs 55,000 to be adequate compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. Besides the Tribunal granted Rs 3,000 on account of expenses of treatment. Under the head of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 20,000 as compensation. Thus a total award of Rs 78,000 was made in favour of the claimant. Rs 50,000 was ordered to be paid by the insurance company as its liability was found to be limited to that extent. The remaining Rs 28,000 was ordered to be paid by the owner. The claimant also got three-fourth of his costs.

4. Three separate appeals were filed before the High Court; one by the dissatisfied claimant; the second by the aggrieved truck owner and the third by the aggrieved insurance company. The High Court dealt with the matter in equal elaboration. It affirmed the view of the Tribunal in granting compensation under the three heads aforementioned. However, the award was improved to the extent that the claimant also got interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from November 11, 1972, the date on which the claim petition was filed up to the date of the payment thereof; subject of course to suitable adjustments in the event of any payment having already been made to the claimant.

5. In Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 1977, preferred by the owner of the truck, leave was granted limited to grounds II and XIX of the special leave petition. In ground II the question raised was that when the claimant had not claimed interest in the application, and the Tribunal had not awarded any, the High Court was in error in granting interest under Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act where the power of the court or the Tribunal was discretionary. In ground XIX the question raised was that a sum of Rs 20,000 on account of mental agony, pain and suffering etc. was arbitrarily granted, and thus ought to have been taken to be covered up by the compensation granted on account of loss of earning. In Special Leave Petition No. 5344 of 1977 the claimant has asked for more compensation, interest etc. on each count.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and