( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises from a claim for compensation, which was made under Section 110 of that Act. The appellant, a yong girl of 15 years, a student of the 1st Year Science class in the S. B. R. College, Bilaspur, riding a lady bicycle, while returning from the College to her house, was struck from behind by a truck No. M. P. L. 718. She fell down with her bicycle. She was extricated from under the truck where she was lying between the front and the rear wheels. She was removed to the hospital. She sustained a fracture of the spine. She had to remain in the hospital for 3 months. She claimed rs. 8,400 as general damages and Rs. 1,600 as special damages.

( 2 ) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), passed a decree in favour of the applicant for Rs. 1,250, that is Rs. 500 as special damages and Rs. 750 as general damages against the third respondent, the Indian Trade and General Insurance Co. The claim was dismissed against the owner, Banwarilal (respondent 1), and the driver of the truck, Cornalious (respondent 2 ). The applicant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the general damages awarded to her by Rs. 7,660 and has prayed for a decree for the Rs. 8,910. All the three non-applicants, that is, the owner and driver of the truck as also the Insurance Co. have been made respondents in this appeal, so that if it is found that the insurance Co. (respondent 3) is liable for a lesser amount, the other respondents may be held liable for the balance. There is no appeal by the non-applicants or any of them. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has found that the applicant was involved in the accident; that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently when it gave her a dash from behind and it caused the accident; that she sustained fracture of the spine, i. e. , the 4th lumber vertebra that she was put under a plaster jacket for about three months; and thereafter a fortnight was spent in rehabilitating her; that she could not attend her college from 5-10-1959 to 20-1-1960; that, consequently, she could not pass the annual examination that year; and that no permanent disability has been caused to her. It is unnecessary to give the details of the special damages which were partly allowed by the Tribunal and about which there is no dispute in this appeal.

( 4 ) SHE claimed Rs. 8,400 as general damages, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 750. The applicant had stated in her deposition that she continued to have discomfort in walking; that she could not take part in the outdoor games and that she could not ride a bicycle. This statement was corroborated by her father, bhagwandas (A. W. 2 ). When further cross-examined, he said that she used to play Badminton, but since after the accident site could not.

( 5 ) WHEN this appeal was heard, learned counsel for both aides agreed that medical evidence as to the consequence of the fracture which she sustained was obscure and that ends pf justice required that evidence of an expert be taken in this Court. Dr. K. D. Koshal, Professor of Surgery, Medical College, Jabalpur, was then asked to examine the appellant. His statement was recorded. Counsel for both sides were allowed to cross-examine him. Dr. Koshal states that on examining the appellant, he found that her gait was normal, the muscle power in both the lower limbs was normal; and tile sensations in both the lower limbs were normal. X-ray examination revealed an old, healed fracture of the 4th lumber vertebra and c vertebra appeared to be deformed. In the opinion of the witness, if the appellant gains weight, she is liable to develop osteoarthritic changes and develop low backache. The witness says :-

"it is quite possible for a patient, who has sustained a lumber spinal fracture, to experience serious difficulty in playing strenuous games. Badminton is a strenuous game; so also about riding a bicycle. Even if she plays games lightly and rides a bicycle casu