JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. — These two appeals arise out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Solan The appellant in FAO. No. 79/85 is the claimant while the appellant in FAO No, 170/86 are the owners of the bus involved in the accident. 2. The accident occurred on 1-11498 when the appellant/claimant, who was Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was proceeding in his Jeep from Solan to Shimla on official duty The bus owned by the Punjab Roadways which was coming from the opposite side, dashed against the Jeep and dragged it to some distance about 25 to 30 metres. It is in the evidence that the bus was on the wrong side of the road when it dashed against the Jeep. Besides causing damage to the Jeep, the accident resulted in serious injuries to the clamant. He suffered grievous injuries in his head and leg. He got admitted in the Hospital at P.G.I. Chandigarh on 1-11-1983 and he stayed in the hospital till 1642-1983 at that time 3. The evidence of claimant as PW 4 is that he is suffering from permanent partial disability of the right knee and is not in a position to walk on slopes and he is also not able to sit cross-legged nor can he lend his knee. He has also stated that he is not in a position to put weight on the right-leg. His right-side of the forehead has been disfigured as a chip of the skull has been broken in the accident. He has deposed that in cold weather he has pains in both the leg and the head He has also stated that he has also lost memory at times on account of the accident. He has deposed that he employed a servant for looking-after his affairs for ten months at Rs. 200 per month and spent Rs. 10,000 on his treatment besides reimburseable amount on medicines etc. 4. PW-2 is the Inspector Vigilance, Anti-corruption Unit, Solan. He was at that time posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kandaghat His evidence is only with regard to the matters which took place after the accident PW-3 is the Head Clerk in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate He was travailing along with the claimant in the same Jeep He was sitting in the Jeep in the rear side. He has spoken about the way in which the bus came on the wrong side being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Jeep. PW-4 was the driver of the Jeep ut that time. He has also spoken about the way in which the accident took place PW-5 is the doctor who was Medical Officer, Incharge of Civil Hospital, Kandaghat, He has deposed that claimant was brought to him on 1-11-1983 in very serious condition and he was having injuries in his body besides fracture of patella After taking X-Ray and giving first-aid, he referred the claimant to P.G.I. Chandigarh. PW-6 is the senior resident doctor in the department of Orthopaedics, P.G.I. Chandigarh, He has deposed that the claimant was treated at P.G.I., Chandigarh till 16-12-1983 from 1-11-1983. He has supported the version of the claimant and stated that the claimant was disabled to the extent of 30% loss of function of the right-side of lower«limb He has stated that the disability is not likely to be cured during the life time of the claimant and it is likely to go along the life of the claimant He has spoken of the certificate issued by him marked as Ext. P-l and Ext PW-6/A. 5. PW-7 is the DCSO., Solan. He was coming from Shimla to Solan in the bus which got involved in the accident. He has also spoken to the fact that the bus was being driven on the wrong side and the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. He has supported the version of the claimant in full. 6. It has to be mentioned here that the Punjab Roadways did not choose to file any reply in the claim petition nor did it make any effort to set-aside the ex parte order. It is seen from the record that the Assistant District Attorney prayed for adjournments on occasions in order to enable him to file an application for setting aside the order of ex parte. No such application was filed the third respondent in the claim petition, who was the driver of the bus, was appearing in the Court for some-time but he did not later turn up to contest the proceedings when the trial was taken up. No such application was filed the third respondent in the claim petition, who was the driver of the bus, was appearing in the Court for some-time but he did not later turn up to contest the proceedings when the trial was taken up. Thus, the Punjab Roadways chose to ignore the entire proceedings as if it had nothing to do with the same. 7. Naturally, the witnesses examined by the claimant were not cross-examined and their evidence remained uncontradicted On the basis of the evidence placed before the Tribunal, the latter came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 27,000 could be awarded as just compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs, 20,000 for mental agony, sufferings and pain and for 30% disability. A sum of Rs 5,000 was awarded for the expenses incurred by the claimant in addition to the reimburseable amount spent for the treatment. Another sum of Rs 2,00t) was awarded as pecuniary damages, as the claimant had engaged a servant to attend upon him for ten months. The Tribunal also allowed 6% interest on the amount of Rs. 27,000 from the date of the award till the amount was deposited in the Court. 8. The claimant is aggrieved by the award as, according to him, the entire claim of Rs. 1,50,000 should have been awarded. He has preferred this appeal (F.A.O. No. 79 of 1985). On the other hand, the Punjab Roadways who chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal, has filed another appeal FAO. No. 170 of 1986 challenging the grant of Rs 27,000 as compensation. Jo the memorandum of appeal it is stated that the bus involved in the accident belonged to Pathankot depot of the Punjab Roadways and the Pathankot Depot was headed by General Manager who was not made a party in the claim petition It is further alleged that the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh and the Secretary, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, who were added as respondents No. 1 and 2 in the claim petition, had no concern at ail with the claim of the claimant. In other words, the contention of the Punjab Roadways is that the necessary party was not impleaded in the claim petition and the persons who were not necessary or proper to the claim petition, were impleaded as parties. 9. In other words, the contention of the Punjab Roadways is that the necessary party was not impleaded in the claim petition and the persons who were not necessary or proper to the claim petition, were impleaded as parties. 9. Even here, we must point out that the stand taken by the Punjab Roadways is rather curious and wholly unacceptable. The Punjab Roadways is a statutory Corporation. It should be represented by a person designated and nominated for the purpose of the proceedings in the Court. It is not the case of the Punjab Roadways that the General Manager of i the Pathankot Depot is the person who is authorised to represent the Corporation. It is also not the case of the Punjab Roadways that no notice had been received by them in the claim petition or that the Corporation was not aware of the proceedings at all It is seen from the record, as pointed out already, the driver of the bus involved in the accident, was appearing in the Court for some time and the Assistant District Attorney took adjournments for filing application for setting aside the order setting the Punjab Roadways ex parte in the main proceedings. In such a situation, the stand taken by the Punjab Roadways in this appeal is highly condemnable. A statutory Corporation should not have raised such a contention in the appeal. If really the contentions are true and correct, they should have applied to the Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte order and placed relevant facts before the Court. 10. In so far as the appeal filed by the claimant is concerned, we find that the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant remains unchallenged. Issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal is whether the accident is the result of rash and negligent act of respondent No. 3. There is ample evidence on the record to show that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus. We have already referred to the evidence of the Head Clerk in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (PW-3), the driver of the Jeep as PW 4 and the independent witness Rattan Chand Garg (PW-7) who was travelling in the bus. Nothing can be said against the evidence of PW-7 even if it can be alleged that PW-3 and PW- 4 were interested in the claim. Nothing can be said against the evidence of PW-7 even if it can be alleged that PW-3 and PW- 4 were interested in the claim. Hence, we accept the evidence of PW-7 and affirm the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash arid negligent driving of the bus. Apart from that, it is a fit case in which doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked the way in which the Jeep was dragged for a distance of 25 to 30 metres backwards and that the bus was on the wrong side of the road shows that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Hence the finding is affirmed. 11. Issue No. 2 is whether the claimant/petitioner has suffered permanent partial disability as alleged, on account of the injuries in the accident. On this issue there is sufficient evidence on record. The doctor who examined the claimant immediately after the accident in the Civil Hospital, Kandaghat, has spoken as PW-5. The doctor under whom the claimant had taken treatment in P.G.I., Chandigarh, has given evidence as PW-6 the certificate issued by PW-6 and the oral evidence of PW-6 cannot be challenged at all. No motive can be attributed against him to speak in support of the claim of the claimant. Hence we have no -hesitation to accept the evidence that the claimant was disabled to the extent of 30% loss of function on the right lower-limb Hence the finding on issue No. is also affirmed. 12. Issue No. 3 relates to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant The Tribunal has taken the view that it would be sufficient if a sum of Rs 20,000 is awarded for the mental agony, sufferings and pain and for 30% disability of the claimant. The Tribunal has observed that the claimant remained in the hospital for 45 days and throughout his life he would always remember the sufferings undergone by him and that the disability had become his perpetual companion. When the Tribunal has taken note of those circumstances, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs 20,000 by way of compensation for the said disability is not sufficient and just compensation on the facts and circumstances of the case. When the Tribunal has taken note of those circumstances, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs 20,000 by way of compensation for the said disability is not sufficient and just compensation on the facts and circumstances of the case. We have to bear in mind the social status of the claimant and the nature of the work which is being performed by him as Sub-Divisional Magistrate. When such a person suffers permanent disability which will always remain in his mind throughout his life, certainly it will not stop with a physical disability but it will also affect him mentally A person who is employed as Sub-Divisional Magistrate has to be alert mentally always as he has to decide case between litigants. He has also to proceed on tours in connection with his official work he cannot remain seated in one place and it is not as if he is doing a routine clerical job His work is such of demanding nature that he has to exercise his mental faculty always to such an extent that he will become fatigued within a short time. If such a person has undergone permanent disability to the extent of 30%, it is a matter which will seriously affect his future prospects. That has to be borne in mind by the Court when compensation is being awarded to him. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned Advocate General, it is not a matter on which arithmetic calculations can be drawn by any Court or Tribunal and come to a correct figure by applying some fixed formula. It is a matter which has to be decided only by taking into account various facts and circumstances of the case. We have referred above to the relevant facts and circumstances of this case which weigh with us while granting compensation to the claimant. 13. Learned Counsel for the claimant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Virinder Kumar Pandit v. M/s. Govind Rice Factory and another, 1990 (2) ACJ 1050. In that case the injury was depressed fracture of tibia resulting in shortening of left leg with 20% disability. The injured was a Lecturer aged about 45 and movement of his knee joint was restricted in last 20 degrees. In that case the injury was depressed fracture of tibia resulting in shortening of left leg with 20% disability. The injured was a Lecturer aged about 45 and movement of his knee joint was restricted in last 20 degrees. There was loss of flexion and injured was unable to squat and had difficulty in working, cycling and driving scooter. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs, 1,04, 000 by way of compensation and the appellate Court awarded only Rs 56,000 for medical treatment as per account produced by him A sum of Rs. 76,000 was awarded for mental and physical pain and permanent disability The appellate Court also awarded Rs. 30,000 for future transportation, Ks. 5,000 for special diet and Rs 13,100 for loss of salary for 3-1/2 months. On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,80,100. While referring to relevant factors which where taken into consideration by the Court for enhancing the compensation, the learned Judge said : “12.......The disability of the leg was of permanent nature as to toe loss of flexion and inability to squat. The disability was to hamper in performing the duties of a Professor by V.K. Pandit as he had to stand and also sit because of which he was going to tire He was also to feel difficulty in driving scooter, cycle and walking It was during cross-examination that he stated that the patient had healed from point of view of bony injury but he was having some pain remnant. He was likely to improve in muscle power with physiotherapy but he will need help of a stick for normal stability. He remained mentally alert throughout his stay in the P.G.I." 14. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Yashpal Gaur v. Meena Suri and others, 1995 ACJ 480 The Division Bench stated the proposition thus : "8. In the matter of determination of compensation, various guidelines have been indicated in various judicial precedents. There is unanimity in judicial opinion that the award by which a claimant is compensated should be moderate, just and fair. It should not be oppressive to the respondents it should again be not punitive, exemplary or extravagant, A few judicial decisions in this regard may be noticed." 15. There is unanimity in judicial opinion that the award by which a claimant is compensated should be moderate, just and fair. It should not be oppressive to the respondents it should again be not punitive, exemplary or extravagant, A few judicial decisions in this regard may be noticed." 15. After referring to various decisions of different Courts, the Division Bench considered the facts of that case and referred to removal of patela from the right-leg of the injured and partial from the left-leg. The Division Beach also pointed out that the injured cannot stand for long. Taking note of the various factors referred in the judgment, the Division Bench granted a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 enhancing it from Rs, 53,000 granted by the Tribunal 16. The above judgments do contain the principles on which compensation has to be determined. The facts are some what similar in this case also. We have already referred to various circumstances of this case which are relevant for enhancement of the compensation. We have to necessarily bear in mind that the claimant in this case was aged 32 at the time of the accident and he has a long career ahead. He will always be suffering this mental agony throughout his life. In the circumstances, we find that this is a fit case in which compensation should be enhonced at Rs 50,000 in all including a sum of Rs 55000 awarded by the Tribunal for the expenses incurred by the claimant and Rs. 2,000 for the employment of the servant to attend upon the claimant 17. It goes without saying that the appeal filed by the Punjab Roadways has to fail in view of our findings given above. Their contention that no compensation is payable and that the Punjab Roadways had no proper opportunity to defend the case, cannot accepted, 18. 2,000 for the employment of the servant to attend upon the claimant 17. It goes without saying that the appeal filed by the Punjab Roadways has to fail in view of our findings given above. Their contention that no compensation is payable and that the Punjab Roadways had no proper opportunity to defend the case, cannot accepted, 18. The only question which remains to be considered is grant of interest on the amount now awarded by us as compensation Normally, the claimant will be entitled to interest from the date of application in the claim petition No reason has been given be the Tribunal as to why grant of interest is restricted from the date of the award In our opinion, the claimant is entitled to get interest from the date of the application and not merely from the date of the award Hence the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified as follows : The claimant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of the original petition, namely, 20-3-1984, till the realisation the claimant is also entitled to get costs, both, before the Tribunal and in this Court. 19. It is represented that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been deposited in this Court and the same has been invested in the fixed deposit, Registry will make arrangements to pay the entire amount which has accrued on the fixed deposit The claimant will entitled to recover the balance by executing the award as against the Punjab Roadways It is needless to add that the interest will stop running from the date of deposit in this Court on the amount of compensation deposited by the Punjab Roadways pursuant to the award of the Tribunal. 20. With the above modification, F.A.O. No, 79/85 is allowed and F.A.O. No. 170/86 is dismissed. C.M.P. No 792 of 1996 : This petition has been filed by the claimant to place before the Court certain additional facts which took place after the passing of the award by the Tribunal. 20. With the above modification, F.A.O. No, 79/85 is allowed and F.A.O. No. 170/86 is dismissed. C.M.P. No 792 of 1996 : This petition has been filed by the claimant to place before the Court certain additional facts which took place after the passing of the award by the Tribunal. In this petition it is stated by the claimant that he had to get admitted once again in the hospital for undergoing Patellectomy which was done on 24-1-1985 so as to completely remove the Petella of the right-knee It is further stated that after the said operation, maculation under General Anaesthesia was done on 14-3-1985 since the Patellectomy resulted in acute stiffness of the right knee The claimant has produced photographs of the relevant documents issued by the hospital in evidence of the statements contained in the said petition. 21. In the petition the petitioner/claimant has not stated whether the disability has increased on account of the said operations undergone by him in January 1985 and March 1985. Nor has the claimant given any statement of the expenses incurred by him for the said operations. In such a situation, the claimant is not entitled to any relief on the basis of the facts stated in C.M.F. No. 792196. Consequently, that petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. -