JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jaipur stating therein that on 5th August, 1983 at about 10.00 a.m. he was going to the High Court on his scooter and when he reached near Shalimar Talkies in Jaipur a Tempo No. RRE 5526 driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 came from opposite side and hit the scooter of the appellant as a result of which he sustained injuries including fractures in his tibia and fibula bones of the right leg and the scooter was also damaged. According to the appellant his leg in question became weak. He sustained another fractures in tibia and fibula bones of the same leg after 11 months of the accident. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,59,500/- under various heads. The respondent No. 2 is the owner of the Tempo, while respondent No. 3 is the insurer. The respondents contested the claim petition. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the sides awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,585/- to the appellant vide its judgment and award dated 15th June, 1989. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the Award the appellant has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of the compensation. 3. I have heard both the sides. 4. The arguments of the appellant are that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the Issue No. 4 against him holding that the second fracture was not consequence of the previous fractures sustained in the accident and that in deciding the Issue No. 3 only a meagre amount of compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 5. I have gone through the evidence on record and have also perused the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. The appellant (A.W. 5) has deposed that by the injuries and fractures sustained in the accident his right leg has been shortened by 2 cms., but Dr. C.S. Sharma (A.W. 1) has not stated so. The appellant has again deposed that after 11 months of accident, he sustained second fractures in the tibia and fibula bones of his right leg because due to the previous fractures sustained in the accident his leg became weak and as a result of which he lost the balance due to which second fractures in the same leg occurred. But the Dr. But the Dr. C.S. Sharma (A.W. 1) has stated that the second fracture is not the result of the previous one, but if patient looses his balance due to the pain in the previous fracture then second fracture can occur by fall. Evidently according to the medical evidence of A.W. 1 the second fracture has not taken place owing to the previous fractures sustained in the accident. Even if it is taken that the second fracture took place after 11 months owning to the pain in the first fractures and thereby the appellant loosing balance, it can not be said that the second fracture was due to the fractures sustained in accident. In other words it can not be held that in any manner that the second fracture is the direct result of the accident in question. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has correctly decided the Issue No. 4 against the appellant. The appellant is, thus, not entitled to any compensation with regard to the second fracture. I find myself broadly in agreement with the conclusions and the reasons of the learned Tribunal on this point. 6. Coming to the question of compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded: (a) Rs. 5,000/- on account of medical expenses etc. (b) Rs. 5,000/- on account of the bodily pain and mental agony etc. (c) Rs. 585/- on account of the damages to the scooter (d) Rs. 15,000/- on account of the general damages and loss of efficiency etc. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 25,585/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. The accident in question has resulted fractures of tibia and fibula bones of the right leg of the appellant. According to the appellant his leg has been shortened by 2 cms. consequent to the injury sustained in the accident. But doctor has not stated about the shortening of the leg but has indicated that due to the injuries sustained by the appellant his right leg has become weak and as such if he looses balance he may sustain other injuries. After 11 months of the accident the appellant has actually sustained injuries including fracture in the same leg due to the weakness in the leg. Thus, this may not be-permanent disability, but a permanent problem for him and he cannot walk or run normally. He has to be careful and cautious about the weakness in his leg throughout his remaining life. Thus, this may not be-permanent disability, but a permanent problem for him and he cannot walk or run normally. He has to be careful and cautious about the weakness in his leg throughout his remaining life. 8. The Apex Court in the case K.D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1995( 1) TAC 557 has laid down as under:- "Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant (1) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 9. In case of personal injuries, it is the claimant himself who utilises the compensation amount and it is he who has to suffer the impact of the accident throughout his remaining life. Therefore, while determining the quantum of compensation the aforesaid principle of law should not be lost sight of. 10. The appellant as A.W. 5 has deposed that he had to spend Rs. 8,000/- on account of the medicines etc., Rs. 3,000/- for going to and coming back from Jodhpur in connection with the medical consultation and treatment, Rs. 2,500/- on account of the special diet prescribed by the doctor, and Rs. 4,000/- on account of the purchase of special stick and other appliances. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 585/- as compensation on account of the damages to the scooter. 3,000/- for going to and coming back from Jodhpur in connection with the medical consultation and treatment, Rs. 2,500/- on account of the special diet prescribed by the doctor, and Rs. 4,000/- on account of the purchase of special stick and other appliances. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 585/- as compensation on account of the damages to the scooter. Thus, under the head what has been termed as pecuniary damages in R.D. Hattangadi case supra, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 18,085/-. 11. Under the head what has been called as non-pecuniary special damages by the Apex Court in the above quoted case, it has to be noted that because of the accident the appellant, who was an active practising lawyer before the accident has taken a permanent problem of a weak leg, if not, permanent disability. Therefore, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the matter. I think a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. sixty thousand is adequate, reasonable for non-pecuniary special damages and it would meet the ends of justice in the matter. 12. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 78,085/- (Rs. seventy eight thousand and eighty five) is award able to the appellant. 13. No other point has been argued and pressed before me. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The total compensation of Rs. 25,585/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to a total sum of Rs. 78,085/-. The enhanced compensation shall be payable to the appellant jointly and severely by the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. The respondent No. 3 shall, however, be liable to pay to the extent of limit, if any, mentioned in the policy. To this extent the award dated 15th June, 1989 of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified. Rest of the term and condition of the award passed by the learned Tribunal in maintained. 15. There shall be no order as to the costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******