JUDGMENT 1. - The present Civil Misc. Appeal for enhancement of compensation arises out from an Award dt. 5.8.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims ' Tribunal, Jodhpur in Claim Case No. 104 of 1984 between Amba Lal Saraswat v. Vijay Kumar Alias Sampat & Ors. , whereby, the. Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 49,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the application i.e. 9.11.1984, 2. A few facts leading to this appeal may be stated at the out set. 3. On 15.7.1984 at about 7.30 p.m. the appellant-claimant was going on his cycle on the road which goes to Rotary Choraya at Residency Road. The appellant was going slowly and on left side of the road towards Shashtri Nagar where all of a sudden, about 200 yards off Rotary Choraya towards Shashtri Nagar, a bus bearing registration No. RSN 5567 came from behind, being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent,non-applicant No. 1 Vijay Kumar alias Sampat, with excessive speed and hit the appellant. Due to heavy impact of the accident, the appellant was thrown on the road and his cycle was completely smashed and damaged. The appellant-claimant's right hand's collar bone and shoulder bone were fractured and his right hand's nervous system which joins with the spine was affected, which resulted in permanent disablement of appellant's right hand. 4. In support of the claim, the appellant examined himself as PW 1, Nand Lal as PW 2, Hari Ram as PW 3, Dr. S.P. Agarwal as PW 4, Seva Ram as PW 5 and Dr. Dharmendra Sharma as PW 6. 5. Irrespective of sufficient opportunities afforded to the respondents, no evidence was adduced on their behalf. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after analytical scanning of" the material available on record, the Tribunal by the impugned order awarded the amount mentioned in the preceding paragraph with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Perused the Award under appeal and with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant Mr. H.R. Panwar, examined the statement of Dr. S.P. Agrawal (PW 5) the Orthopaedic Surgeon. 9. Main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant before me is that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the general damages in the present case. According to Mr. H.R. Panwar, examined the statement of Dr. S.P. Agrawal (PW 5) the Orthopaedic Surgeon. 9. Main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant before me is that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the general damages in the present case. According to Mr. Panwar, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disablement which amount is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. It is also urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 20,000/-towards pain and suffering. According to Mr. Panwar, the amount so awarded for pain and suffering to the appellant is also inadequate compensation which deserves to be enhanced. 10. Learned counsel Mr. R.K. Mehta appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2; refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and supported the award under appeal. Mr. D.R. Loonkar appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 Oriental Fire and Gerieral Insurance Company Limited adopted the arguments of Mr. R. K. Mehta and urged before me that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is eminently just and proper. The Tribunal has given a break-up of the compensation, dividing it into two groups; compensation for special damages and compensation for the general damages caused to the appellant due to the injury received by him in the accident. According to Mr. Loonkar, the Award under appeal amounting to Rs. 49,800 /- a"' with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application is based on cogent and convincing reasons given by the Tribunal which deserves to be affirmed by this Court. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. I have also critically analysed the evidence available on record. As regards the quantum of compensation for special damages caused to the injured appellant, he claimed Rs. 5,000/- i.e. damage to his cycle Rs. 500/-, damage to cloths which he was wearing on the date of accident Rs. 350/ -, damage to HMT watch Rs. 350/- loss of salary and expenses towards treatment Rs. 3,800/-. 12. A close scrutiny of the Award reveals that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,800/- compensation to the injured appellant towards special damages whereas he claimed on this count Rs. 5,000/-. I am satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured-appellant for special damages caused to him. 3,800/-. 12. A close scrutiny of the Award reveals that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,800/- compensation to the injured appellant towards special damages whereas he claimed on this count Rs. 5,000/-. I am satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the injured-appellant for special damages caused to him. The Tribunal has committed no error in assessing the compensation towards special damages; caused to the injured-appellant. The Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of awarding Rs. 4,800/- compensation towards special damages to the appellant with which I am in full agreement. 13. As regards general damages, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. H.R. Panwar, strenuously urged that the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 25,000/- towards the permanent disablement of the injured-appellant. Suffice is to say in this regard that the close scrutiny of the statement of PW 4 Dr. S.P. Agrawal, an Orthopaedic Surgeon lead to the conclusion that he has not calculated the percentage of disablement. Not only this, PW 4 Dr. S.P. Agrawal has categorically stated on oath that he advised exercises to the injured-appellant to bring back his right hand in normal position. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error in awarding Rs. 25,000/- compensation with interest from the date of application on this amount to the injured-appellant towards his permanent disablement. 14. It is next contended by Mr. Panwar, learned counsel for the injured-appellant that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the compensation on the count of pain and suffering undergone by the injured-appellant. It is true that there is no proper yard-stick to assess compensation for pain and suffering of an injured person. There cannot be a fool-proof method of it is further true that a person who receives an injury and declared to be permanently disabled for his whole life, has to suffer some.depression and frustration through out his life. It is stated by Mr. Panwar that age of the injured-appellant on the date of accident was 48 years. It is also admitted that the injured-appellant who was employed in the Audit Department as Junior Accountant continued to work as such upto the age of his superannuation. He was drawing full salary during his service period. It is stated by Mr. Panwar that age of the injured-appellant on the date of accident was 48 years. It is also admitted that the injured-appellant who was employed in the Audit Department as Junior Accountant continued to work as such upto the age of his superannuation. He was drawing full salary during his service period. Therefore, although no financial loss has been suffered by the appellant due to injury received by him in the accident in his right hand yet he would continue to remain in depression and frustration would dominate his mind throughout his life. 15. Looking to the normal expectancy of life to be 65-70 years, it is held that amount of compensation assessed to be Rs. 20,000/- on this count by the Tribunal in the year 1988 when the purchasing power of rupee was not reduced upto the extent which is prevailing today with interest thereon from the date of application is adequate and it does not require interference in the present appeal.In view of what has been discussed above, the present appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The Award under appeal dated 5.8.1988 is affirmed. Costs are madeAppeal Dismissed. *******