T.N. Singh, J.

1. By this common order, two appeals are disposed of as both appeals relate to the common accident which took place on 19.6.1979. Two persons were injured in the accident and two separate claim cases were registered. Appellant Bhagchand has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 38 of 1983; he had instituted C.C. No. 4 of 1980, claiming damages for injuries which he suffered.

2. I propose to deal first with the case of appellant Bhagchand who is aggrieved as the award in the sum of Rs. 7,750/-, according to Mr. Haswani, is on too low a side. Counsel has taken me through the evidence of Dr. V.R. Shinde whose evidence was recorded in Claim Case No. 4 of 1980 while Bhagchand himself also gave evidence and that was recorded in Claim Case No. 3 of 1980. The doctor has deposed that on 19.7.1979, he was attached to District Hospital, Datia as Assistant Surgeon and on that date, at about 6.55 a.m., Bhagchand came to him in an injured condition. He found several injuries on his person and those, in his opinion, were grievous. On the left leg, he noticed the tibia bone being exposed and the muscles damaged. The wound was fresh and he found blood-clotting. He also found dislocation of the left ankle and referred the patient to Superintendent, J.A. Hospital, Gwalior for X-ray and treatment.

3. Bhagchand's own evidence is that at the Gwalior hospital, X-ray was taken and his leg was plastered and he remained in that condition for six months with the plaster. For ten months, he could not do any work. He was a Diesel Mechanic and on an average, he used to earn Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- per month. He spent Rs. 1,000/- for his food and treatment at Gwalior, daily expenses were Rs. 10/-to Rs. 15/-. He used to go for consultation also to Jhansi hospital and there he spent about Rs. 1,000/-. The consultation was necessary because he continued to suffer pain.

4. Mr. N.M. Haswani's contention is that although the X-ray report has not been proved, the facts which have remained uncontested are crystal clear. To no cross-examination the claimant Bhagchand was subjected in regard to the plaster from which he suffered for six months or even in regard to his inability to perform any work for ten months. As regards his pain also, there is no cross-examination. He is very correct. It appears that the only cross-examination was about the nature of the accident as it was contended that the oncoming vehicle, a bus, was not driven rashly and it was also contended that the motor cycle of which the appellant was a pillion rider was not being driven by a licensed driver. Except that, only cross-examination is in regard to cash memos/ receipts about treatment taken at Jhansi or Gwalior.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the award definitely deserves to be modified. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the pain and suffering for six months due to plaster which the claimant had undergone. It had also to be considered that for ten months he was rendered unemployed. Taking an overall view of the evidence, the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-.

6. I take up now the other case. Appellant Hardayal singh, in the other appeal, Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1983, had instituted Claim Case No. 3 of 1980 and he has been awarded by M.A.C.T., Datia, a sum of Rs. 14,400/- as compensation for the injury he suffered. That, it is contended by Mr. Haswani, is on extremely low side and the compensation is grossly inadequate because the claimant became a subhuman after the accident. He proved by producing medical evidence that his leg was shortened by 1 1/2".

7. The doctor who treated the claimant at Medical College, Jhansi, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, gave his evidence as PW 5. He stated clearly that he found both bones, tibia and fibula, of the left leg fractured. The tibia did not join. He had to undertake an operation and one part of the bone from fibula had to be taken out. The operation was done on 5.10.1979 and the plaster was applied