VAIDYA, J.:- The above First Appeal is filed by the Insurer M/s. Marine and General Insurance Co., Ltd., Appellant No.1, the insured owner of the motor lorry, bearing No. MRT 8615 Minu D. Mehta - Partner, Cawasji Behramji and Co., Appellant No.2 and the said partnership firm, Appellant No.3, under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award passed against them in the sum of Rs. 1,43,400/- on an application for compensation made to the Tribunal by Respondent Dr. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan.

2. By the award a sum of Rupees 500/- was also awarded to Smt. Malati M. Deshmukh, nurse and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded as costs to Dr. Nayan. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed by the Insurance Co. against the award passed in favour of Smt. Malati M. Deshmukh for Rs. 500/- and costs at Rs. 100/- has been dismissed summarily on August 14, 1975.

3. The award in favour of Dr. Nayan is challenged on two grounds by the appellants; Firstly, on the ground that the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry was not established in the case by Dr. Nayan; and secondly on the ground that the quantum of damages was wrongly calculated as Rs. 1,400/- for nursing expenses, Rs. 300/- for medicines and other expenses, Rs. 73,779/-, as the loss sustained for 4 years since the year of the accident and Rs. 63,000/- as 50% or Rs. 1,26,000/-, which would be the expected loss, which the claimant had to suffer for the remainder of his life, calculated at 7 years.

4. It was further contended on behalf of the Insurance Co., - appellant No.1 - that in any event having regard to the provisions of S.95(2)(a), the liability of the insurance company under the policy cannot exceed the limit of Rs. 20,000/-.

5. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under: Dr. Nayan was driving motor car MRC 4450 (Fiat Car) from Worli towards Haji Ali by the correct side of the road. Smt. Malati Deshmukh, a nurse, was sitting by his side. At about 1.00 P.M., on April 14, 1969, as the vehicle was thus proceeding, the motor lorry, belonging to the Appellants Nos.2 and 3, came from the opposite direction, in an uncontrollable speed, crossed over the central road dividers, went to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the car driven by the Respondent, at a place situated on Dr. Annie Beasant Road, Opposite Lotus Cinema.

6. As a result of this accident, the Respondent Dr. Nayan and nurse Malati Deshmukh both sustained injuries. They were removed to the Park Nursing Home, Bombay.

7. Dr. Nayan submitted that the driver of the said vehicle was rash and/or negligent while driving the same, inasmuch as:-

(i) the lorry came on the wrong side of the road crossing the road dividers,

(ii) the driver drove the said vehicle at a high, excessive and improper speed,

(iii) the driver drove the said vehicle without any control over the same,

(iv) the driver drove the said vehicle without keeping proper lookout,

(v) the driver failed and neglected to apply the brakes and/or failed to apply the brakes effectively and/or in sufficient time so as to prevent the accident,

(vi) the driver failed and neglected to manoeuvre the vehicle so as to avoid the accident,

(vii) the driver was having the last opportunity to avoid the accident, which he has not availed of.

8. Dr. Nayan further submitted in his application in the prescribed form under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that he was undergoing great and unbearable pain and suffering in consequence of the injuries sustained by him since the date of the accident. He was unable to perform the natural and routine functions of life independently since the date of the accident. His expectation of life was shortened. His earning capacity is likely to be substantially and adversely affected.

9. He is a surgeon having a nursing home and consulting rooms. Since the date of the accident he is not able to attend to the nursing home and consulting rooms. He has, therefore, lost income from his profession. He has to pay f