1. This appeal by respondents 1 to 3 in O. P. M V.) No. 55 of 1977 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Trivandrum arises out of its judgment awarding Rs. 21.000/-as damages to the petitioner in the Original Petition who is the respondent in the appeal. The appellants are respectively the State Insurance Officer and the driver of a Jeep Wagon KLR. 3104 owned by the State and which was involved in the accident.

2. The petitioner was at the material time a Telephone Operator in the P & T Department. On 28-1-1977 at about 6.15 P.M. he was riding on his motor-cycle KLR. 5482 with his wife and child in the pillion from west to east along the Palayam-Vellayambalam road, south of the Kanakakkunnu Palace in Trivandrum. The road at the point is 40 feet wide. According to the petitioner he was going about 5 feet from the left (northern) edge of the road. The wagod KLR. 3104 which was being driven by the third respondent at a high speed from east to west came along the middle of the road and without giving any signal suddenly turned to the right (north) to enter the Palace compound. While thus turning, the right side of the wagon hit the right thigh of the petitioner throwing him, the motor cycle and the pillion riders to the ground, He sustained major injuries but his wife and child escaped with minor injuries. The third respondent then stopped the wagon and ran west. It was the last day of the flower show which had been going on in the Palace compound and the road and the compound were fully illuminated. According to the petitioner, when he came near the scene of accident there was a police party on duty at the palace gate. After the accident the petitioner was removed to the Medical College. Hospital, Trivandrum and he was under treatment for a long period. After his discharge he filed the petition claiming Rs. 70.000/- as damages and subsequently by an amendment he enhanced the claim to Rs. 1,20,000/-. The State which was the first respondent and the owner of the wagon, filed a written statement denying that the 3rd respondent, the driver was guilty of any rashness or negligence in driving the wagon and that he was responsible for the accident.

3. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the rashness and negligence of the driver and that accordingly the respondents were liable. As for damages, the Tribunal awarded the petitioner Rs. 21,000/-under the following heads: (i) Loss of earnings Rs. 3500/-. (ii) Transport charges Rs. 200/-. (iii) Extra nourishment Rs. 1000/-. (iv) Medical treatment Rs. 1000/-. (v) Damages to the motor-cycle Rs. 300/-. (vi) Pain and suffering Rs. 10000/-, (vii) Permanent disability and the loss of earning power Rs. 5000/-.

4. The Appellants challenge the entire award while the respondent-petitioner by a memorandum of cross-objections claims Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the amounts awarded for pain and suffering and impairment of enjoyment of life and capacity.

5. Starting with the appellants' liability for damages, the Tribunal has definitely found that the driver was guilty of rashness and negligence in driving the wagon and in causing the accident involving injuries to the petitioner. Against this finding the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the appellants could not raise any effective argument but nevertheless we shall make a brief reference to the evidence to indicate that it amply bears out the finding. The road at the scene of the accident was straight running east and west and was 40 feet wide with a footpath of about 4 metres on either side. The scene mahazar Ext. A5 which was prepared by the Police and which is not disputed by either party shows that there were two lamp posts, one on the northern foot path and the other on the southern foot path and that the scene was 11.62 metres south of the former and 11.27 metres north-east of the latter. It was 9.5 metres north of the southern edge of the tarred portion of the road. This means that in terms of feet it was at a p