B.K. Ray, J. - (1.)THE Respondent on 26. 11. 72 at about 1.00 p.m. was returning from his office on motor cycle. He was driving his motor cycle very slowly, steadily and cautiously on the left side of the road and was constantly blowing horn While so going on the road, at Goutam Nagar in Bhubaneswar near the residence of one G.N. Das the Respondent had to negotiate a turn. At the time of negotiating the turn the Government jeep belonging to the Appellant came rashly and negligently in a very high speed without blowing horn from the opposite direction and dashed against the Respondent and his motor cycle. As a result of the accident the Respondent and his motor cycle were thrown inside a drain nearby. The respondent was seriously injured and became senseless at the spot. The motor cycle was heavily damaged. The Respondent was then carried to the hospital where he remained as an indoor patient for treatment of his injuries from 26.11.72 to 17.1.73. Even after he was discharged from the hospital his treatment continued. During treatment gangrene developed on the injuries and the big toe and the little finger of his right leg were amputated. The Respondent had to undergo severe pain and mental shock on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Besides the expenses incurred during treatment in the hospital, the Respondent also incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 30,000/ - after his treatment in order to provide for various p re -cautionary measures. As a result of the accident the Respondent became partially invalid. After the accident the Respondent is no longer able to walk freely, use bicycle and motor cycle and is always in need of an attendant to enable him to carry on his normal duties. The Respondent was a good sportsman before the accident. After the accident he is no longer able to play any outdoor game, and so, has been deprived of all pleasures in his life. The length of his life has also been shortened due to the injuries sustained by him. He is not able to perform normal field work which he was required to do as an officer in the L. I. C. and consequently he has lost his future prospects of promotion and substantial portion of income.
On these allegations the Respondent filed an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a damage of Rs. 46,000/ - against the Appellant before the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri.

(2.)THE Appellant in its objection to the claim of the Respondent alleged that the accident was due to the fault of the Respondent, and so, he was not entitled to any damage. The Appellant also challenged the quantum of damages claimed by the Respondent.
Tribunal, after a thorough analysis of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the jeep. Upon this conclusion, according to the Tribunal, the Respondent is entitled to Rs. 3,000/ - for physical pain, Rs. 2,000/ - for mental shock, Rs. 1,100/ -for expenditure during the period the Respondent was in the hospital, Rs. 4,000/ - for future expenses, Rs. 2,000/ - for loss of pleasure, Rs. 1,000/ - for loss of longevity and Rs. 12,000/ - for loss of future income. After deducting l/6th from the total amount for lump sum payment to the Respondent the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 21,05/ - as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation with consolidated cost of Rs. 400/ -.

(3.)LEARNED Additional Government advocate for the Appellant does not challenge the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. According to him, the Respondent not having been able to prove by cogent evidence that he is entitled to damages on different heads of claim as allowed by the Tribunal, the award granting Rs. 21,335/ -to him cannot be sustained in law. It is urged that the Respondent being the Petitioner before the Tribunal the onus is entirely upon him to establish his claim for damages on reliable evidence. The evidence led by the Respondent, it is contended, is vague and indefinite, and upon such evidence it is not possible to calculate the amount of damage to be paid.