A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chairman, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District judge ). Nalgonda in O. P. No. 802 of 1992 dated 24. 12,1994. ( 2 ) THE claimant who is a practising advocate met with an accident while he was proceeding along with his friend in a Maruti car bearing No. AP-28-A-6708 from Hyderabad to Khammam on 15. 5. 92 at 2. 00 p. m. near Manikyalammagudem. According to the claimant, the lorry bearing no. APH 7272 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car resulting in injuries to the claimant herein and the petitioner in O. P. No. 803 of 1992. The police, Narketpalli, registered a case in Cr. No. 65 of 1992 under section 337, Indian penal Code against the driver of the lorry. The lorry was insured with the respondent no. 2 insurance company. The petitioner sustained multiple injuries and fractures all over the body. The petitioner was treated as in-patient in Osmania General Hospital. Afterwards, he was admitted in Niveditha nursing Home and he was there for about five months as he had sustained fracture- cum-dislocation of right hip joint, fracture of right knee, grievous head injury and injuries on ribs, shoulder and other parts of the body. After operation, steel rods were inserted in his right leg. Due to multiple injuries, the petitioner was completely bedridden and became permanently disabled. The petitioner incurred huge amount for getting the treatment, for purchase of medicines and attendant charges. As he is unmarried, chances of getting married are also affected. The petitioner cannot stand continuously for 15 to 30 minutes, due to which he cannot concentrate on his profession, which adversely affects his future earnings. Under those circumstances, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 owner of the lorry filed a counter denying the allegations with regard to the disablement, earning capacity and expenditure incurred by the petitioner. Under those circumstances, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 owner of the lorry filed a counter denying the allegations with regard to the disablement, earning capacity and expenditure incurred by the petitioner. He also denied rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant of the maruti car which the petitioner was driving and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i. e. , owner of the maruti car and insurance company with which the car was insured. ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 2 insurance company with whom the lorry was insured resisted the claim by filing a counter. It further stated that it does not admit that the person who drove the vehicle at the material point of time was having valid driving licence. They are not aware of the criminal proceedings launched against the driver of the lorry. ( 5 ) THE claimant examined himself as pw 1 and examined the doctor who had treated the petitioner as PW 2 and his copassenger, i. e. , owner of the Maruti car, who is claimant in O. P. No. 803 of 1992 as PW 3 and got marked Exhs. A-l to a-20. None were examined on behalf of the respondents and no documents were marked on their behalf. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to head-on collision between two vehicles and the same was due to composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal found that the negligence on the part of the lorry driver was at 70 per cent and 30 per cent contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who was driving the car at the relevant time. On issue No. 2 with regard to the compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to a sum of rs. 2,00,000 towards compensation on all heads, but, as the negligence was only 70 per cent on the part of the respondents, it awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,000. Assailing the same, the claimant filed the present appeal. 2,00,000 towards compensation on all heads, but, as the negligence was only 70 per cent on the part of the respondents, it awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,000. Assailing the same, the claimant filed the present appeal. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the claimant strenuously urged that the finding of the lower court that the accident was due to composite negligence is erroneous; merely because it is an head-on collision, the lower court is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the maruti car, i. e. , claimant is also negligent. Though it is stated in the counter of the respondent No. 1 that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti car, the respondent No. 1 has not examined the driver which itself goes to show that the respondent No. 1 has purposefully withheld the examination of the driver of the lorry. Unless the respondents allege and prove the negligence on the part of the petitioner, who was driving the maruti car, the lower court ought to have accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. ( 7 ) HE further contended that the lower court has not properly awarded the compensation and the court failed to take into consideration the loss of future prospects due to disability suffered by the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was in hospital for seven months and he has undergone pain and suffering, for which, the court has awarded only a paltry sum, which requires enhancement. According to the learned counsel, the claimant is still unable to walk freely and requires another operation to set right the hip joint. In spite of the same, there is no possibility of correcting the shortening of the right leg. If all these factors have been taken into consideration in its proper perspective, the lower Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation. ( 8 ) IN support of his contention, learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the following judgments: (1) P. Raju v. Managing Director, Chittoor co-op. Sugars Ltd. , 1996 (1) ALT 827 . (2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Saibaqtualla, 1992 ACJ 858 (AP ). (3) Muthaiah Sekhar v. Nesamonv trans. Corpn. Ltd. , 1998 ACJ 1357 (SC ). Sugars Ltd. , 1996 (1) ALT 827 . (2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Saibaqtualla, 1992 ACJ 858 (AP ). (3) Muthaiah Sekhar v. Nesamonv trans. Corpn. Ltd. , 1998 ACJ 1357 (SC ). ( 9 ) THE law is well settled that it does not call for copious citations and discussion and each case has to be decided basing upon the merits of the case and the facts involved. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company supported the findings arrived by the Tribunal and argued that it is for the claimant to prove negligence on the part of the lorry driver. In the absence of any acceptable evidence adduced by claimant, the Tribunal has done some guesswork with regard to negligence and awarded reasonable compensation. ( 11 ) IN view of the rival contentions, the questions that arise for consideration are: (A) whether the claimant has contributed any negligence for the accident occurred; (b) whether the compensation awarded by the lower court is just and reasonable; and if not, what is the reasonable compensation the claimant would be entitled to. ( 12 ) THE claimant examined himself as pw 1. According to him, he was driving the Maruli car on the fateful day. While he was proceeding from Hyderabad to khammam, when they reached Manikya lammagudem, a lorry came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car resulting in the petitioner and his co-passenger sustaining grievous injuries and he lost consciousness and they got stuck up in the car. The police also registered a case in Cr. No. 65 of 1992. According to him, he was having seven years practice and was earning rs. 5,000 per month. He sustained grievous injuries and fractures all over the body on account of the accident. No doubt the petitioner had failed to file the sketch prepared by the police to show the scene of the offence nor the report of the Motor vehicles Inspector was produced. PW 1 stated that when he noticed the lorry which was coming from the opposite direction at high speed and coming towards their side he swerved the vehicle towards further left down the road, in spite of the same, the lorry came and hit their car. PW 1 stated that when he noticed the lorry which was coming from the opposite direction at high speed and coming towards their side he swerved the vehicle towards further left down the road, in spite of the same, the lorry came and hit their car. In view of the same, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to composite negligence of both the drivers. So far as the finding that the lorry driver is negligent to 70 per cent has not been challenged by respondents. ( 13 ) THE claimant also filed xerox copy of first information report, Exh. A-l and exh. A-3 is the copy of charge-sheet. The tribunal, basing upon the evidence of PW 1, who was driving the car, held that he himself stated in the evidence that he saw the lorry which was coming at a high speed to their right side and, therefore, he swerved his car further left down the road and in spite of that, the lorry came and hit their car. Exh. A-3, the xerox copy of the charge-sheet shows that the police have filed a case against the driver of the lorry. Mere filing of the charge-sheet by the police against the driver of the lorry does not prove that the accident was solely due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. PW 1 s evidence does not show the exact part on which the lorry hit the car. PW 1 did not produce any Motor Vehicles Inspector s report to show that what are the parts of the car that were damaged. Only if the petitioner is able to show that the lorry hit the middle of the car, behind the driver s seat, there is possibility of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry hitting the car. But if the accident was a head-on collision, front parts of the car, headlights of the car of PW 1, etc. , would have been damaged and it would show that the car was not swerved to the extreme left to avoid hit by the lorry. But if the accident was a head-on collision, front parts of the car, headlights of the car of PW 1, etc. , would have been damaged and it would show that the car was not swerved to the extreme left to avoid hit by the lorry. In the absence of sketch to show that the lorry went to the extreme left side of the road, the evidence of the claimant cannot be believed and, therefore, it cannot be held that the claimant is not negligent and he has contributed to an extent of 30 per cent. ( 14 ) THE claimant now filed C. M. P. No. 17781 of 1998 to receive certain documents as additional evidence. The documents filed are: (1) certified copy of charge-sheet in Cr. No. 65 of 1992 of Police Station, kattangur of Nalgonda District (C. C. No. 42 of 1993 on the file of JFCM, Nakrekal), (2) certified copy of the panchnama dated 15. 5. 1992 conducted by the police and also the certificate dated 17. 6. 1998 issued by dr. S. V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Consultant orthopaedic Surgeon of Apollo Hospital, hyderabad. As the petition was not opposed nor any counter is filed, the petition is allowed. A perusal of the panchnama clearly shows that the Maruti car, which is completely damaged and the lorry hit the car on the drivers side which is completely damaged and the same is due to negligence of the lorry driver and the lorry is 30 ft. away from the middle of the road towards north which clearly shows that the car swerved towards left in spite of the same the lorry came and hit the car towards the right side of Maruti car. PW 1 in his chief-examination clearly stated that he swerved the vehicle towards further left down the road in spite of that, the lorry came to the further right and dashed the car. In cross-examination also he reiterated that the lorry hit the car towards right side. The panchnama conducted by the police clearly supports the version of PW 1. The observation of the Tribunal that the claimant swerved the car further right down the road and the lorry came and hit it is erroneous and cannot be accepted. In cross-examination also he reiterated that the lorry hit the car towards right side. The panchnama conducted by the police clearly supports the version of PW 1. The observation of the Tribunal that the claimant swerved the car further right down the road and the lorry came and hit it is erroneous and cannot be accepted. PW 1 has clearly stated that in spite of his swerving the car to the left the lorry came and dashed against the car clearly establishes that the driver of the lorry is negligent and he has not contributed for the accident. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that claimant PW 1 is also negligent in driving the car cannot be accepted. The point No. 1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimant. ( 15 ) THE next question that falls for con sideration is what is the reasonable compensation the claimant is entitled to. The petitioner stated in his evidence that he was earning Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month on the relevant date and he is still unmarried and his marriage prospects have been affected due to physical disability. PW 2 who is the doctor who treated the petitioner in the Niveditha Nursing Home admitted that PW 1 was admitted in their nursing home on 25. 5. 92 with incomplete treatment for right hip joint done by the osmania Hospital doctors. He reopened the injury on 25. 5. 1992 and found that it was a complicated fracture dislocation of right hip joint and, therefore, re-operated and re-fixed the nail and the petitioner was discharged on 18. 6. 1992. He also deposed that he advised the petitioner to take bedrest and directed to visit the hospital on 8. 7. 92. On the said date, he readmitted him in the hospital for physiotherapy treatment and he was in hospital from 8. 7. 1992 to 6. 8. 1992. The petitioner was again admitted in hospital on 20. 12. 1992 and nail pins were removed from his hip joint and he was discharged on 25. 12. 1992 and was advised to walk with the help of crutches. 7. 1992 to 6. 8. 1992. The petitioner was again admitted in hospital on 20. 12. 1992 and nail pins were removed from his hip joint and he was discharged on 25. 12. 1992 and was advised to walk with the help of crutches. He also stated that the petitioner became disabled with deformity in right hip joint and is unstable as the head of femur is avascular, having pain plus deformity and limping and shortening of right leg by 2" to 2 /2" which is a permanent one. He further stated that he has to use the crutches for support to carry on day-to-day activities and he may require another surgery in future to set right the hip joint and after that also, he may continue to be disabled. According to him, the disability is 60 per cent and he issued a certificate Exh. A-4 to that effect. Exh. A-18 is the case-sheet issued by him in Niveditha Nursing Home and denied the suggestion that the treatment was exaggerated and the injury does not require such treatment. Exh. A-2 is the medical certificate issued by Osmania general Hospital regarding the medicolegal case of the petitioner. It also shows that the petitioner had tenderness swelling on right hip, swelling tenderness in the middle of the chin, lacerated wound of 4 cm. x 1 cm. on the forehead. The petitioner filed Exhs. A-5 and A-6, which are the discharge cards issued by Niveditha Nursing hospital. Exh. A-8 is the certificate issued by the Secretary, A. P. High Court advocates Association where he was practising, recommended the case of the petitioner to the Bar Council for financial assistance. Exh. A-11 is a bunch of five x-rays. Exhs. A-12 to A-14 are the medical receipts. Exhs. A-18 and A-19 are the case-sheets maintained by the Niveditha nursing Hospital and Osmania General hospital. The Tribunal while assessing the evidence, held that PW 2 has not stated that petitioner s practice has been affected or will affect in future. ( 16 ) THE finding of the Tribunal that exh. A-8 will not help the claimant and the physical disability has to be established by medical expert and not by the members of advocates association is erroneous. PW 2, the doctor, who was examined, has categorically stated that disability is 60 per cent and accordingly he issued Exh. A-4 certificate. What Exh. A-8 will not help the claimant and the physical disability has to be established by medical expert and not by the members of advocates association is erroneous. PW 2, the doctor, who was examined, has categorically stated that disability is 60 per cent and accordingly he issued Exh. A-4 certificate. What Exh. A-8, the letter given by the Secretary, A. P. High Court Advocates association, discloses is that it has recommended to the Bar Council for some financial help. The Tribunal holding that if the claimant is physically disabled, he could have abstained from the bar association and he is capable of practising and the advocates association issued Exh A-8 certificate, which clearly shows that he is attending to the court also is erroneous. After going through the award of the Tribunal and evidence on record, we are not inclined to accept the said findings of the tribunal. In spite of voluminous evidence adduced, the claimant was not awarded the just compensation. ( 17 ) THE question, therefore, is what is the reasonable compensation the claimant is entitled to? ( 18 ) THE Hon ble Apex Court in R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt, ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), after scanning the evidence, where a lawyer met with an accident, held that while determining the compensation in the motor accident resulting in the disability, certain factors have to be considered, viz. , all different circumstances should have taken into account for computation of damages; that some guesswork is permissible in the computation of compensation. In para 9 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held that damages have to be assessed separately, i. e. , pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. The court further held that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during the accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with the human suffering or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. Recently, the Supreme Court in muthaiah Sekhar v. Nesamony Transport corpn. Ltd. , 1998 ACJ 1357 (SC), after considering the pronouncement in Shashendra lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), enhanced the compensation. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimant has sufficiently put in seven years experience and stated that he was earning a sum of rs. Recently, the Supreme Court in muthaiah Sekhar v. Nesamony Transport corpn. Ltd. , 1998 ACJ 1357 (SC), after considering the pronouncement in Shashendra lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), enhanced the compensation. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimant has sufficiently put in seven years experience and stated that he was earning a sum of rs. 5,000 per month on the relevant date of accident. The same also appears to be reasonable as no person with an income less than Rs. 5,000 will be in a position to live in Hyderabad city, where he has to secure a house for his living and spend sufficient amount for transportation for attending various courts. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs, 20,000 for the loss of income for the period he was in hospital. But the claimant claimed loss of earnings for a period of seven months at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs. 35,000 for the loss of earnings. ( 19 ) THE claimant produced the medical bills and the transport charges, as he engaged a taxi to go to the hospital, etc. , and the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 80,000 and we see no justification for such restriction. Only with regard to the medical bills of Rs. 10,000 issued for consultation fee receipts by Kalinga Fractures orthopaedic Clinic dated 10. 4. 1993, to prove the same, none were examined and the case of the claimant is that he underwent operation at Niveditha Nursing home. In view of the same, the claimant is not entitled to the refund of the said amount. We accordingly award a sum of rs. 1,36,000 towards the medical expenses and other expenses incurred by him. The claimant was admitted in Osmania general Hospital for ten days, i. e. , from 15. 5. 1992 to 24. 5. 1992. Thereafter, the claimant was admitted in Niveditha Nursing home on 25. 5. 1992. PW 2 re-operated the claimant on 26. 5. 92 by re-fixing with nail and the claimant was discharged from the hospital on 18. 6. 1992 with an advice to take rest in the house and also asked to come for review on 8. 7. 1992. Thereafter, the claimant was readmitted on 8. 7. 1992 for mobilisation and physiotherapy, the claimant was in the hospital from 8. 7. 1992 to 5. 8. 6. 1992 with an advice to take rest in the house and also asked to come for review on 8. 7. 1992. Thereafter, the claimant was readmitted on 8. 7. 1992 for mobilisation and physiotherapy, the claimant was in the hospital from 8. 7. 1992 to 5. 8. 92 for mobilisation and gait practice and he was discharged on 5. 8. 1992 and was advised to continue the same at his house and was asked to come to the hospital again on 19. 12. 1992. The claimant was readmitted in the hospital on 19. 12. 1992 and the nail pin was removed from his hip joint on 20. 12. 1992 and was discharged on 25. 12. 1992 and was advised to walk with the help of crutches. The claimant suffered pain and suffering for nearly seven months and underwent physiotherapy, etc. , in all these days. In view of the same, the claim ant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards the pain and suffering undergone by the claimant. For all these days the claimant has taken the assistance of an attendant either in the hospital or at home and, therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000 for attendant charges. ( 20 ) ACCORDING to PW 2, he issued Exh. A-4 certificate of disability and the disability was assessed at 60 per cent. PW 1, in his evidence, stated that since May, 1992, for nearly one year he was going round the hospitals till the date of his giving evidence, i. e. , 18. 1. 94. If an advocate, who has put in seven years of practice and discontinued for nearly 2 years his practice, it is very difficult for him to again mobilise the work and regain the confidence of the clients. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation and the future loss that is likely to be sustained by the injured. For determining the same, some guesswork has to be undertaken by the courts for arriving at such loss. In fact, from the date of filing the claim petition, i. e. , 12. 11. 1992 till the date of his evidence, i. e. , 18. 4. 1994 he is not attending the courts that is nearly about fourteen months and if we assess the future loss at Rs. In fact, from the date of filing the claim petition, i. e. , 12. 11. 1992 till the date of his evidence, i. e. , 18. 4. 1994 he is not attending the courts that is nearly about fourteen months and if we assess the future loss at Rs. 5,000 per month for all these months that itself comes to rs. 70,000 and in all the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 for the future loss of earnings which is just and reasonable. The claimant is unmarried and the accident will definitely diminish the marriage prospects and he may not be able to get a life partner of his choice due to disability, no doubt the same cannot be compensated in terms of money, but the court has to award some compensation for disfiguration and under this head the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000, Admittedly, the claimant requires one more operation as spoken to by PW 2 to rectify the defect, as the claimant is still walking with the help of crutches on the date when pw 2 examined and still the claimant is attending the courts with the help of stick in his hand due to shortening of the right leg by 2 /2". In view of the certificate, which is now filed in C. M. P. No. 17781 of 1998 to receive as additional evidence, shows that the claimant requires a minimum of Rs. 1,50,000 for future operation. The same may appear to be an exaggerative figure. Going by the present day trend of medical expenditure, we think a sum of rs. 75,000 towards future expenditure for conducting the operation and also other clinical examinations, would be reasonable and accordingly we award a sum of rs. 75,000 towards future medical expenditure. ( 21 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the claimant is entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 6,01,000, which was rounded off to Rs. 6,00,000 together with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, on a sum of Rs. 5,25,000. It is clarified that the claimant is not entitled to interest on a sum of Rs. 75,000 awarded for future medical expenditure. The amount, if any, paid shall be given credit. ( 22 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. 5,25,000. It is clarified that the claimant is not entitled to interest on a sum of Rs. 75,000 awarded for future medical expenditure. The amount, if any, paid shall be given credit. ( 22 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.