JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation is directed against the Award dated 7.8.1993 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- to the claimant and dismissed the remaining claim. 2. Claimant Ramesh Chandra filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Banswara for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 9,91,000/-. The case of the claimant, as set-out in the claim petition, is that on 20.10.1991, at about 6.00 p.m., he alongwith Bharat Kumar, was going by the side of the road and were proceeding towards Aamja Pannaji side, where the three roads meet. A tractor No. RJB 5682, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Bhagwati Lai, came from the opposite side and hit him. He received injuries. He was immediately taken to Partapur Hospital, where he was admitted and attended by the doctor. From Partapur Hospital, he was transferred to Banswara Hospital and from there he was taken for treatment to Ahmedabad where he was medically treated. The claimant was a student of Higher Secondary at the time when the accident took place and on account of this accident, his right leg was amputated below the knee. His right hand was, also, fractured and the permanent disability, also, caused to the right hand. 3. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- against the medical expenses incurred by him; Rs. 10,000/- were claimed as the expenses incurred on the two attendants who remained with him; Rs. 1,000/-, were claimed for taking him to Ahmedabad for medical treatment, Rs. 5,000/- were claimed on account of nourishing food; Rs. 50,000/- were claimed for the cost of the artificial leg; Rs. 2,00,000/- were claimed towards mental agony and physical pain suffered by him; Rs. 5,00,000/- were claimed for the loss of future-income on account of permanent disability incurred by him and Rs. 2,00,000/- were claimed on account of the permanent disability incurred by him, on account of which he will not be able to do his work with full capacity. 4. 2,00,000/- were claimed towards mental agony and physical pain suffered by him; Rs. 5,00,000/- were claimed for the loss of future-income on account of permanent disability incurred by him and Rs. 2,00,000/- were claimed on account of the permanent disability incurred by him, on account of which he will not be able to do his work with full capacity. 4. The claim petition was opposed by the defendants and it was stated in the reply filed by the insurance company that the accident never took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver Bhagwati Lal, rather it was on account of the negligence on the part of claimant who was walking on the road which resulted in the accident and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claim as the accident was not the result of the rash or negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. Alternatively, it was, also, averred in the reply claimant. 5. The claimant, in support of his case, examined himself as PW 1 and produced in his evidence PW 2 Bharat Kumar - the eye-witness of the occurrence. The defendants did not produce any evidence in support of their defence. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, by its Award dated 7.8.1993, awazded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as compensation and dismissed the remaining claim of the claimant. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the lower side. From the evidence produced by the claimant, the case of the claimant for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,91,000/- stands established and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not given any reasons for dismissing the remaining claim. It has, also, been stated that the claimant was a boy of 20 years at the time of the accident and the future prospects of his life have been completely taken-away by this accident and he will not be able to earn his livelihood in the proper way and he could not complete his education and, therefore, the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal deserves to be modified and enhanced to the extent of Rs. 9,91,000/-. 7. 9,91,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is much on the higher side. The claimant was only a student of X-class and was not earning anything at the time of the accident and the learned Judge of the Tribunal has taken into consideration each and every aspects of the case and rightly awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- and the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal does not require any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. From the evidence of PW 1 Ramesh Chandra and PW 2 Bharat Kumar it stands established that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor No. RJB 5682 by its driver Bhagwati Lal, Thus, the only question which requires consideration in the present case is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is adequate or it is on the lower side ? 10. The learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- against the medical expenses though the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on this count. PW 1 Ramesh Chandra, in his statement before the Tribunal, in the examination-in-chief, has stated that Rs. 25,000/- were spent by him on his treatment at Ahmedabad and his right leg was amputated below the knee. Not even a single question has been asked to this witness on this point. He remained in the hospital for considerably a long time. His right leg was amputated and he was operated thrice. He had to make payment to the doctor(s) for his three operations and incurred expenditure on medicine etc. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs. 5,000/-against this claim. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal towards medical expenses is much on the lower side and it deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- . 11. The next item which requires consideration is regarding the amount spent by the claimant on his attendants, who were with him during the time when he remained under medical treatment. The claimant claimed Rs. 10,000/- on this count. He has, also, claimed Rs. 15,000/- . 11. The next item which requires consideration is regarding the amount spent by the claimant on his attendants, who were with him during the time when he remained under medical treatment. The claimant claimed Rs. 10,000/- on this count. He has, also, claimed Rs. 1,000/- as the taxi-charges for taking him to Ahmedabad and Rs. 100/-against the bus-fare and Rs. 5,000/- towards nourishing food. Against these claims of Rs. 10,000/- the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the amount awarded on these counts is most inadequate and the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on these counts. 12. The next item which requires consideration is the amount of Rs. 20,000/-awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal for the artificial leg. The claimant has claimed Rs. 50,000/- as the cost of artificial leg but the learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 20,00/- on this count. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has not observed that the artificial leg costs Rs. 20,000/- only. The amount of Rs. 50,000/-for the artificial limb was rightly claimed by the claimant and the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in reducing this amount to Rs. 20,000/- only. The claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as the cost of artificial leg. 13. The next amount which requires consideration is the amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal towards the mental agony and physical pain suffered by the claimant on account of the accident. Though the claimant claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- on this count but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the award of Rs. 10,000/- on this count, in my opinion, is an adequate sum which was rightly awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and no interference is called-for so far this amount is concerned. 14. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- on account of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on this count. The claimant, at the time of the accident, was aged about 20 years and was a student of Secondary standard. 14. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- on account of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on this count. The claimant, at the time of the accident, was aged about 20 years and was a student of Secondary standard. On account of this accident he remained in the bed for considerably a long time. He lost his leg and suffered the permanent disability of 65%. This permanent disability has affected his personal as well as family life. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the future career of the claimant, I am of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal on this count is much on the lower side and the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on this count. 15. The next item which requires consideration is the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the learned Judge,of the Tribunal against the future loss of earnings to the claimant. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on this count. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is an adequate amount and it does not require any interference. 16. The compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, thus, deserves to be modified and the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 1,10,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The claimant is, also, entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on this amount of compensation from the date of submission of the claim petition till its realisation. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant- appellant is partly allowed. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs. 1,85,000/- an the rest of the claim of the claimant is dismissed. The claimant will, also, be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on this amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the payment is made.Appeal allowed. *******