B.K.Ray, J. - (1.)MANABENDRA Moharatha, Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, filed an application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act which was disposed of by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri claiming compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - for the loss sustained by him (Respondent No. 1) on account of a motor accident in which he received certain injuries. His case in the claim petition may briefly be stated thus: On 20 -6 -71 at about 11.00 a.m. the claimant was coming in a car bearing registration No. ORC 9111 from the aerodrome side towards Capital side at Bhubaneshwar. He negotiated the Janpath crossing and moved towards east. The car was then moving at a normal speed on the extreme left side of the road. Shortly after he had crossed the crossing a truck bearing registration No. ORC 7864 came from the opposite direction in a terrific speed being driven most rashly and negligently and dashed against the car. The truck was at that time being driven by the driver Narayan Das who was heavily drunk. The driver was not blowing any horn. The truck before dashing against the car uprooted two strong concrete pillars fixed on the extreme left side of the road and then pressed the car against another such pillar on the same side of the road. The car was completely damaged. The claimant received serious injuries and became almost unconscious at the spot. The breadth of the road at the place of accident was about 20 feet and there was no vehicle, except the two motor vehicles involved in the accident, at the place nor was there any other obstruction on the road at that time. The claimant after the accident was removed to the hospital in another car by a friend. The friend's car was following the claimant's car at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident the claimant's nasal bone was fractured and the claimant suffered from mental shock and pain. The claimant at the time of the accident was a meritorious student and was reading in the final M.A. class in the University College at Bhubaneshwar. He was also then getting pilot training in the aerodrome at Bhubaneswar. He could not appear at his final M.A. examination as he remained completely bed -ridden on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident for a long time. During the period he was bed -ridden he could not look after his electrical business and cultivation. Due to the permanent physical infirmity he got as a result of the accident he could not proceed with the pilot training. He accordingly lost his career in life. For loss of his career, for mental shock and pain, for loss of his income from agriculture and business, for loss of his education, for medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment and for after -care expenditure he claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/ -.
(2.)THE owners of the car and the truck involved in the accident remained exparte before the Tribunal. The insurer of the truck, the present Appellant, only contested the claim of Respondent No. 1. The case of the Appellant before the Tribunal was substantially a denial of the allegations made in the claim petition.
Upon the evidence of Respondent No. 1 alone who was the only witness to have seen the accident the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver - of the truck and that the responsibility for the accident was on the said driver alone. Relying upon the evidence of the doctor examined by Respondent No. 1 the Tribunal held that a fracture of nasal bone caused a permanent disfiguration of the face of Respondent No. 1 and that Respondent No. 1 during treatment for the injuries was confined to bed for two months. The Tribunal, after discussion of the evidence on each item of claims of Respondent No. 1 awarded Rs. 1,000/ - for treatment of the injuries; Rs. 2,000/ - for after -care expenditure; Rs. 6,000/ - for loss of career as pilot; Rs. 2,000/ - for loss of income from business; Rs. 1,000/ - for loss of agricultural income and Rs. 4,000/ - for loss of study. According to the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 being bed -ridden after the accident for a long time could not appear in the final M.A. examination in due course and it was on account of the suffering undergone by Respondent No. 1 he got a Third Class in the final M.A. examination in which he appeared later on. But while totaling the compensation on different heads the Tribunal has committed an arithmetical mistake by saying that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 18,000/ - in all, whereas the correct figure will be Rs. 16,000/ -. Deducting from Rs. 16,000/ - 15 per cent for lump sum payment the Tribunal should have arrived at a figure of Rs. 13,600/ - instead of Rs. 15,300/ -.

(3.)MR . P. Roy, learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that the policy issued in favour of the insured, i.e., the owner of the truck, shows that the Appellant has reserved to itself all the defences available to the insured. In the present case, the insured has not contested the claim and the written statement filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal shows that it has taken all the defences available to the insured. The records of the case further reveal that the claimant never objected to the defences taken by the Appellant before the Tribunal which also allowed the Appellant to cross -examine the witnesses for the claimant on all points. Hence, according to Mr. Roy, the law laid down in the decision reported in B.I.G. Insurance Co. v. Itbar Singh : A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1331has been substantially complied with, and so, the Appellant has a right to challenge the quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal. There appears to be sufficient force in this contention. On the question of damages Mr. Roy has rightly argued that the evidence regarding loss of income from agriculture and business as well as the evidence regarding after -care expenditure adduced by the claimant are unworthy of any credit. According to Mr. Roy, the award relating to these three heads must be set aside. After scrutinising the evidence on record it is found that regarding business the claimant has said that he was looking after the electrical business belonging to him and his father and that as he remained bed -ridden for two months on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident he could not look after the business and that on account of this he sustained loss in his business. But his father who is a claimant in another claim case arising out the same accident (vide Misc. Case No. 43/32 of 1971/73) before the Tribunal and has claimed compensation for damages done to the car has deposed that he was looking after this business. It may be mentioned here that the claim case of the son. viz., the present Respondent No. 1, as well as the claim case of the father were made analogous, heard together and disposed of by one award. So, in these circumstances, the evidence of the father can safely be taken as evidence in the claim case of the son. Therefore, the evidence of Respondent No. 1 regarding loss in his business being directly contradictory to the evidence of his father, the award of the Tribunal regarding this head of claim cannot be sustained.
Similarly, the evidence regarding loss of income from agriculture and claim for aftercare expenditure is equally shaky and unreliable. The Tribunal's finding that Respondent No. 1 is entitled to Rs. 2,000/ - towards after -care expenditure is based on no evidence. Regarding loss of income from agriculture, there is practically no material to arrive at any conclusion about the alleged loss sustained by Respondent No. 1. So, on these two heads of claim the impugned award cannot be sustained. Regarding other heads of claim allowed by the Tribunal, after having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant at length 1 do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal relating to those heads. I, therefore, hold that Respondent No. 1 is entitled to Rs. 11,000/ - in all. Deducting l/6th from this amount for lump sum payment Respondent No. 1 is entitled to get Rs. 9,200/ - in round figure. The award of the Tribunal has therefore to be modified accordingly.