V. Khalid, J. - (1.)THESE two appeals are from the same judgment: the first by the 3rd Defendant -insurance company, and the other, the legal representatives of the 1st Defendant. The legal representatives of the 1st Defendant have been impleaded in A. S. No. 36 of 1977. The Plaintiff filed the suit in forma pauperis claiming damages for the injuries sustained by him in an accident involving bus K. L. D. No. 9261 owned by the first Defendant and driven by the 2nd Defendant. The total claim made by him was for Rs. 25,000/ -. The Court below decreed the suit for Rs. 20,000/ - with proportionate costs against all the Defendants. The 3rd Defendant -insurance company assails the decree on two grounds: one, that the court below ignored Ext. B -2 transfer by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant and secondly that the decree cast liability more than the statutory limit. The first Defendant disputes, in main, the award of compensation and its quantum.
(2.)ON 30.3.1974 the Plaintiff boarded the bus K. L. D. 9261 owned by the first Defendant and driven by the 2nd Defendant to go from Perambra to Calicut. When the bus reached Thiruvangoor, it met with an accident. The 2nd Defendant tried to overtake another bus which was going ahead. This he did in a rash and negligent manner. He was driving the bus itself rashly and negligently. The result was a head -on collision with a lorry K. L. Q. 5575 coming from the opposite side. One of the passengers in the bus died. The Plaintiff and some others in the bus sustained grievous injuries. Both the legs of the Plaintiff were fractured. He was removed to the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. An X -ray photo of his legs was taken. Both the legs were in plaster. He was in the hospital from 30.3.1974 till 9.4.1974. The suit was filed on 11.10.1974. On this date also his legs were in plaster. He was visiting the hospital for treatment even thereafter till 12.6.1976. He was not able to attend to his usual avocation. He suffered pain and was in great mental agony. He had to spend what he had earned for his treatment and other necessities. He was doing a small business in copra. For this purpose he had to cover a long distance on foot. After this accident, he could walk only with the help of a stick. His parents depended upon him for their maintenance. The damage to his legs has impaired his capacity to work and earn. He was 22 years old at the time of the accident. He had an expectation of 40 years more of life. His monthly income was Rs. 200/ -. He could have earned substantial sum but for the injury caused to him. In support of his case he examined himself as P. W. 2 and adduced the evidence of P. W. 1, the doctor who treated him.
The first Defendant disputed the case of the Plaintiff that the accident took place because of the negligence of the 2nd Defendant. According to him, it was due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. That the Plaintiff earned Rs. 200/ - per month was not admitted nor that the accident had disabled the Plaintiff for life. He was in a position to attend to his work. It was further stated that he had sold the vehicle on 19.9.1973 to the 2nd Defendant and hence not liable for any damages.

(3.)THE second Defendant filed a written statement denying the fact that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and disputing the quantum of damages claimed.