JUDGMENT 1. - National Insurance Company Limited, Panch Batti, M.I. Road, Jaipur, has filed this appeal against the award dated 21.5.1985 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Claim Case No. 119 of 1980 Sunita v. Harilal . 2. Respondent No. 1, the claimant, filed a claim petition for Rs. 5,35,000/- against the appellant, along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur on the ground that on 7.4.1980 at about 2 p.m. in village Moja Lakher, the driver of truck No. RSR 4741, while driving the said truck rashly and negligently, dashed the claimant, respondent No. 1, opposite the Sheetla Mata Temple, which caused serious injuries to her in both the legs. As a result of the injuries her left leg had to be amputated and the right leg became useless due to this accident. In her claim petition, she gave the details as to how Rs. 5,35,000/- were to be made out. 3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant, National Insurance Company Limited. 4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver on account of which respondent No. 1 received serious injuries in one of her legs as a result whereof the left leg had to be amputated up to her thigh. The Tribunal held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to a sum of Rs. 77,000/-as compensation. 5. Against this award the National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal whereas a cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred by the respondent No. 1 for enhancement of the compensation from Rs. 77,000/- to Rs. 5,35,000/-. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties. 7. In my opinion the award of Rs. 77,000 is inadequate. As a result of the injuries the left leg of respondent No. 1 was amputated and that she could not lead the normal life. The compensation to be awarded should not be inadequate and should also neither be unreasonably excessive nor unreasonably deficient. It should be commensurate to the loss suffered by the person injured. It should be just and reasonable. 8. Amputation of left leg was a lifelong agony for respondent No. 1 and that she would not even be married. The compensation to be awarded should not be inadequate and should also neither be unreasonably excessive nor unreasonably deficient. It should be commensurate to the loss suffered by the person injured. It should be just and reasonable. 8. Amputation of left leg was a lifelong agony for respondent No. 1 and that she would not even be married. She had been deprived of all pleasures of her life. 9. The estimate of the actual extent of her injury could not be ascertained with certainty and was a matter of estimate or even purely of conjecture. The Tribunal appears to have committed a gross error in awarding Rs. 77,000/- as compensation to her. Counsel appearing for her urged that the compensation should have been at least Rs. 1,00.000/-. I find myself in agreement with him. 10. So far the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited is concerned, nothing could be pointed out to show that the award suffers from a defect, which requires setting aside by me. 11. In this case the Tribunal awarded interest to the respondent No. 1 initially at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. But in its penultimate paragraph it observed that the same would be payable at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in the the event of compensation not being paid to the said respondent. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid, therefore, the rate of interest to be calculated would be 12 per cent per annum on the entire sum with effect from the date of the application till payment. 12. In the result, the appeal (Appeal No. 288 of 1985) filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur, is dismissed: whereas the cross-objection filed by the respondent No. 1 succeeds and is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs, 77,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. *******