JUDGMENT : H L. Anand, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi on the Appellants application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called "the Act", by which the claim of the Appellant and one Roshan Lal for compensation on account of injury caused as a result of the accident was dismissed on the ground that the accident resulting in the injuries to the Appellant could not be said to be due to the rash and negligent driving of a D.T.U. bus, belonging to Respondent No. 1, by Respondent No. 2 its driver. 2. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances. The Appellant and one Roshan Lal, who has since died, were traveling in D.T.U. bus No. DLP 776, belonging to Respondent No. l and driven, at the material time, by Respondent No 2 which suddenly swerved towards the right side of the road and struck a tree and as a result came to a halt causing shock and injuries to the Appellant. As a result of the accident the Appellant lost five teeth. Soon after the accident, report Ex. PW 8/A was lodged. The Appellant was examined by a doctor who found an injury in his lower jaw, four front teeth from the lower jaw were taken out and one upper teeth was extracted six days after the Appellant was brought to the hospital. The Appellant made claim for Rs. 25,000/- u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act on various heads, namely permanent loss of five teeth, disfigurement, loss of prospects, loss of prestige, loss of efficiency and shortening of life on the allegations that the bus was not being driven in an orderly manner by the Respondent No. 2. and due to his carelessness and rash and negligent driving it got out of control of the said Respondent and struck a tree on the road side of the road causing serious accident which resulted in the injuries to the Appellant besides other passengers. The Appellant further alleged that, apart from the loss of teeth, the Appellant also suffered many serious bruises and cuts an the face and other parts of his body and had been admitted to Willingdon Hospital. The Appellant further alleged that, apart from the loss of teeth, the Appellant also suffered many serious bruises and cuts an the face and other parts of his body and had been admitted to Willingdon Hospital. The claim was resisted by the Respondents and it was, inter-alia, denied that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of Respondent No. 2. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following two issues: 1. Whether the accident resulting into injuries to the Petitioner was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus in question ? 2. To what amount, if any, is the Petitioner entitled ? 4. It appears that one of the other passengers who was injured as a result of the accident, Roshan Lal, filed a separate petition claiming compensation and both the petitions were apparently tried simultaneously and disposed of by a common Award. It further appears from the files of these two cases that while some evidence was recorded in one file, the remaining evidence was recorded in the other. While statements of PW2, Ram Prakash, A.S.I. Police Station Tilak Nagar, New Delhi; P.W3, Ram Mehar, Constable Police Station Tilak Nagar, New Delhi; P.W.4, Har Parshad, A.S.I. Daljit Singh, who is also described as PW4; Dr. S.C. Bhatia, Assistant Surgeon, Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, PW5; PW6, Ram Chand PW7, Dr. J.K. Dutta, Doctor Incharge Tilak Nagar Hospital, New Delhi; Ram Mehar Constable who was again examined as PW 8; PW9 Avtar Singh, A.S.I. Flying Squad, Shakti Nagar; and PW10 S.I. Chuni Lal, Traffic Officer, Delhi were recorded in the file pertaining to the Appellant's petition, the statements of Dr. N. Pinto, Staff Surgeon, Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, PW1; Krishan Kumar PW4; Dr. S.C Bhatia, Asstt. Surgeon Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi, PW5; PW7 Dr. Surjit Kaur, Municipal Corporation Hospital, Tilak Nagar; PW8, the Appellant as his own witness; PW9 Roshan Lal, the other passenger; PW1 Satya Prakash Vats, Auditor, Office of Director Audit and Accounts, P & T Delhi; RW2 Kishan Lal, Respondent No. 2 as his own witness; RW3 Gurbaksh Singh, conductor of the bus and RW4 Ram Nath, Traffic Inspector, D.T.U. Delhi were recorded in the other file. 5. 5. Under issue No. 1, the question was whether the accident resulting into injuries to the Appellant was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus in question. On this question, the Tribunal returned the finding that the accident could not be said to have been caused by rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. While considering the aforesaid issue, the Tribunal noticed that Daljit Singh, PW4, who was examined in the petition of the other passenger and who had lodged the F.I.R., stated that while going towards Uttam Nagar from Tilak Nagar on a bicycle, he saw the bus in question coming form Najafgarh side but could not say if it was going fast or slow and noticed that the driver swerved bus to the right in order to save the child as a result of which the bus struck against the tree which was on the right side of "he bus and at the edge of the road at a distance of 1 or two yard from the edge. He further stated that engine was damaged. The Tribunal further observed that this witness was declared hostile because in the F.I.R. recorded by him he had stated that the driver was negligent. When confronted with his statement, the witness stood by his statement in Court and claimed that the driver applied the brake to save the boy and for which he swerved to the right. The Tribunal further noticed that Ram Chand, P.W.6, who was also examined in the other case, had stated that he was in the bus in question which swerved to the right side and struck against the tree as a result of which many passengers were injured who were taken to Tilak Nagar Hospital. It was further noticed that this witness belonged to the same village as Roshan Lal, the claimant in the other case. It was, however, noticed by the Tribunal that this witness admitted that the bus was on the correct side of the road before the accident but denied the suggestion that there was any body on the road at the time and that the several was to save the boy. The Tribunal next noticed the evidence of RW1 Satya Prakash, RW2 Kishan Lal and RW3 Gurbaksh Singh, conductor of the bus and of RW4 Ram Nath, Traffic Inspector. The Tribunal next noticed the evidence of RW1 Satya Prakash, RW2 Kishan Lal and RW3 Gurbaksh Singh, conductor of the bus and of RW4 Ram Nath, Traffic Inspector. The Tribunal noticed that according to the evidence of the driver and the conductor, there were some buffaloes at a distance of about one furlong from the bus and that when the bus came near the buffaloes, two/three buffaloes which were in the middle of the road moved to the right followed by two children who started crossing the road abruptly as a result of which the driver swerved the bus to the right and hit the tree where the bus stopped. It was further noticed that according to this evidence, the bus was being driven at a speed of 20/25 miles an hour. The Tribunal then noticed the contention of the Appellant that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver as the bus had gone to the right of the road and struck a tree which led to the accident and the consequent injuries and the invocation by the learned Counsel for the Appellant of the principle of res ipsa loquitur which was accepted in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Munnabai and Others. The Tribunal further noticed the contention raised on behalf of the Respondents that both the eye witnesses Daljit Singh and Ram Chand could not be relied upon because while Daljit Singh did not support the case of the Appellant, and the other Petitioner, Ram Chand could not be believed because he belonged to the same village as Roshan Lal, the other claimant. The Tribunal then proceeded to set out its conclusion thus: It is no doubt correct that the bus went to be the right side of the road and struck the tree as a result of this impact with the tree, the passengers in the bus got some injuries and the two Petitioners Roshan Lal and Mahavir Pershad were also in the bus and evidence establishes that Mahavir Pershad lost his five teeth and Roshan Lal got a fracture of fore-arm. It has to be seen whether this accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said bus or not. It has to be seen whether this accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said bus or not. PW4 Daljit Singh is the person who lodged the F.I.R. He does not support the Petitioner nor does he state as to whether the bus was running slowly of at a high speed. He further supports the Respondents and stated that the bus was swerved to the right side in order to save a child who had come on the road. Ram Chand is another witness examined by the Petitioners. I have carefully gone through his statement and I am not prepared to place any reliance upon him. The second reason for not believing him is that Roshan Lal in paragraph 22(g) of his application has stated that he was standing in the middle of the bus and was catching the rod with his right hand. Ram Chand has stated that Roshan Lal had occupied a seat in the bus when he entered the same. It is sufficient to note that an amendment was sought, by Roshan Lal in order to do away with the effect of paragraph (g) of his application but this was not allowed by my predecessor on the ground that the amendment was not bona fide. In view of the fact that the Petitioner Roshan Lal in his application stated that he was not standing at the time of accident, I am not prepared to place any reliance on the statement of Ram Chand who stated that he was sitting on a seat when the accident took place. The third reason for not believing him is that he is not a witness mentioned in the FIR nor he appeared in the criminal court nor was he examined by the police. The Petitioners have not been able to admit or deny the factum as to the reason on account of which the bus swerved to the right. The written statement of the Respondent reveals that the bus was swerved to the right in order to avoid a major accident. The driver and the conductor both have stated that it was swerved to the right as certain children started crossing the road when they followed buffaloes who suddenly started going to the right. The written statement of the Respondent reveals that the bus was swerved to the right in order to avoid a major accident. The driver and the conductor both have stated that it was swerved to the right as certain children started crossing the road when they followed buffaloes who suddenly started going to the right. The road on which the bus was running is a main road, and as the driver was faced with a contingency or saving the children who at once started crossing the road, so he had no other option but to swerve the bus to the right. This was the main reason which prevailed with the learned District Judge while acquitting the driver by judgment dated 13.7.67 copy of which is RW4/1. The Respondent driver has thus succeeded in establishing the cause for swerving the bus to the right and in this attempt the bus struck the tree which caused injuries to the Petitioner. Under these circumstances I am not prepared to hold that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving and as such these two issues are decided accordingly. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident was not caused by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver is unjustified even on its own finding of facts and on the Respondent's evidence. According to the driver himself, he was driving the bus at a speed of 20/25 miles an hour and had seen the buffaloes on the road, when he reached village Nangali, from a distance of about one furlong. He further stated that on so seeing the buffaloes, he lifted his foot from the accelerator but swerved only when he came near the buffaloes because he found them drifting to the right and saw crossing children. When the driver saw the buffaloes about to cross or crossing the road, at a distance of one furlong when he was coming at a speed of 20/25 miles an hour, it was his duty to slow down the bus so that the possibility of an impact with the buffaloes or the necessity of a sudden stoppage or swerval was obviated. Admittedly, he did not do this but ran the risk of continuing until a point when it became impossible for him to avoid an impact with the buffaloes or the children without a sudden swerval to the right. The necessity of a sudden swerval and its adverse consequences could easily have been avoided by the driver if seeing a number of buffaloes at a distance of one furlong, he had taken the precaution of immediately slowing down. It is not mere speed that constitutes rashness or negligence because failure to take necessary precaution while handling a vehicle or failure to anticipate an approximate or probable cause of an accident also constitutes negligence and the driver was negligent in that he did not exercise the reasonable caution expected of a driver when he saw a number of buffaloes on the road and must have seen the two children before they actually started crossing the road. The fact that he suddenly swerved to the right side of the road and stopped only at a distance of a few feet from the extreme edge of the road itself indicates that the swerval was almost at a point of no return. The necessity of sudden swerval also points 1:0 an irresistible conclusion that the vehicle was being driven at a speed which rendered its sudden stoppage by application of brakes verily impossible. The driver obviously landed himself into an unfavorable situation in which a sudden swerval became imperative causing an accident which in turn caused injuries to the Appellant. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that in his failure to take necessary precaution well ahead of time even though he was warned by an impending unfavorable situation by the appearance of the buffaloes and of the children much before the zero hour, the accident must be attributed to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The reliance by the Tribunal on the acquittal of the driver by the criminal court or the rejection or acceptance of any evidence in those proceedings was improper. The two proceedings are wholly independent of each other. The judgment in one, the reasons for it, and the material on which it may be based are not only irrelevant but wholly inadmissible in the other. The two proceedings are wholly independent of each other. The judgment in one, the reasons for it, and the material on which it may be based are not only irrelevant but wholly inadmissible in the other. The degree of negligence required to be proved in a civil action is different than the one that the law requires to prove inculpable negligence. 7. In the view that I have taken of the evidence of the driver and the conductor themselves, it is unnecessary to discuss the infirmity, if any, in the evidence produced on behalf of the two claimants. The decision in a case must rest on the evidence available to the court irrespective of whether such evidence as produced on behalf of the claimant or the other side or was otherwise brought on the record. 8. That leaves us for determining the second issue which unfortunately the Tribunal left undecided in view of its conclusion on the first issue. The question for consideration under this issue is as to the quantum of compensation to which the Appellant would be entitled, it is a common case of the parties that as a result of the accident, the Appellant was injured, lost four front teeth of the lower jaw and one tooth of the upper jaw and that these were permanently lost and would have to be replaced by artificial set of teeth to properly masticate food. It was not disputed before me that the injuries caused to the Appellant as a result of the accident must of necessity have caused considerable pain for considerable number of days involving the Appellant in some expenditure for the purpose of medical treatment besides causing loss of time. There was some controversy before me as to whether the loss of 5 teeth caused any permanent impairment to the Appellant or effect his efficiency capacity to work or longevity. There was also some controversy as to whether the loss of the aforesaid teeth and the injury on the jaw had caused any permanent disfigurement of the Appellant. It, however, appears from the evidence of Dr. Pinto PW1 that the Appellant had an injury in his lower jaw. There was also some controversy as to whether the loss of the aforesaid teeth and the injury on the jaw had caused any permanent disfigurement of the Appellant. It, however, appears from the evidence of Dr. Pinto PW1 that the Appellant had an injury in his lower jaw. While it is not possible to return a finding that the injuries or the loss of teeth have affected the life expectancy of the Appellant or his effectiveness or efficiency in work, there is no doubt that on account of the loss of teeth as a result of the accident and the injury on the lower jaw, there would not only be some disfigurement of a part of Appellant's anatomy, the Appellant would suffer for the rest of his life from a handicap in having lost 5 teeth and to have to masticate his food with the aid of artificial teeth. It would also cause considerable inconvenience to the Appellant besides involving the Appellant in some expenditure in the periodic replacement of the artificial teeth besides involving him in loss of time. 9. A review of the works of prominent authors on the law relating to damages and of the course of judicial decisions leads one to an irresistible conclusion that the task of ascertaining the quantum of general damages is a difficult and perplexing one, primarily because there is no exact or uniform rule for measuring the valve, either of the human life or of any particular limb and the assessment of damages for the loss of one or the other could not be arrived at by any precise mathematical calculation. A man who is physically injured in an accident ordinarily suffers more than a mere pecuniary loss. Hs may, for example, lose function of a part of his body ; he may be permanently or temporarily disfigured ; he may experience pain, suffering and agony ; his enjoyment of life may be impaired as a result of the accident and he may be totally or partially, whether permanently or temporarily, disabled and, above all, the loss of any part of the body may generally have an adverse psychological effect on his entire future and happiness. The task of evaluating these consequences of an accident is a very complex one for how does one go about fixing in terms of money or laying down a tariff, as it were, for, any of the aforesaid consequences of an accident. There is no doubt that life is a valuable asset and so are the various parts of the human body but the task of putting a value on any part of the body or to determine the extent of loss of happiness or capacity to work presents a difficult and a painful problem. However, difficult the problem of a compensation for pecuniary losses may be, the basis of assessment have always been clear; the award of the Tribunal seeks to put the injured, in the economic position, he would have been in but for the accident. The compensation on this restitution basis is, however, impossible in the case of non-pecuniary losses because it is not possible to get an order for the Defendant to re-deliver the Plaintiff the leg or an eye or the teeth which he has lost nor it is possible for the Court to adopt a formula by which mental pain, agony and anguish, that is suffered by the victim, could be obliterated, Courts have, therefore, in general confined their attention to the award of what may appear to the court to be fair and reasonable compensation or what in the circumstances appear to it to be just. 10. In determining fair and reasonable compensation on account of general damage it is not possible to ignore the imperative that the compensation must be relative to the prevailing social and economic conditions and awards made in such cases must keep pace with the growing inflation, ever-increasing cost of living and consequent devaluation of the real worth of the rupee. 11. Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, it appears to me that Rs. 5,000/- would be a fair and reasonable compensation on account of general and special damages. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The Award of the Tribunal is set aside and the Appellant is awarded Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation. 13. The Appellant would also have his costs throughout.