JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - On 15.8.85, Harvinder Singh was travelling in bus No. HRU 8291 owned by Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh Depot/State of Haryana. It was being driven by Gajjan Singh respondent. He boarded the bus at Ambala for Zirakpur where he was to report for duty. It may be mentioned here that he was employed in the Indian Army as Lance Naik enrolled on 18.3.1974. Bus met with accident with truck No. PUS 4157 owned by Pritpal Singh respondent being driven by Sher Singh respondent. Accident took place because of the rash, negligent and careless driving of the bus and the truck by their respective drivers. They could not control the respective vehicles as they were driving them on uncontrollable speed. He was to report for duty on promotion. Accident took place at Lalru barrier where the road had been narrowed down by the putting of drums. Case FIR No. 45 was registered on 15.8.85 at PS Lalru with respect of this accident. He was born on 1.12.1954 and was getting Rs. 819/- as salary in addition of free boarding and lodging. Accident took place at about 7-7.15 a.m. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala where he was given first aid. He was shifted to Military Hospital, Ambala the same day where he remained as indoor patient for about 15 days. Thereafter, he was shifted to Command Hospital, Chandigarh where he remained admitted for a further period of 8 to 9 months for follow up and recovery. He did not have to spend on the purchase of medicines as medicines were supplied to him free by the respective hospital authorities. He spent on special diet. He spent on engaging a servant to attend on him. He incurred expense in travelling. He suffered fractures and other injuries which remained uncured. It was permanent disability. After this accident, he was not able to pursue the ordinary pursuits of life. He had to be invalided from army service. If he had a normal span of career, he would have gone upto the rank of honorary Captain but that was not to be. He was invalided from army service otherwise he would have climbed the ladder after serving as Naik, Havildar, Naik Subedar, Subedar, Subedar Major and then to the rank of Honarary Captain. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. He was invalided from army service otherwise he would have climbed the ladder after serving as Naik, Havildar, Naik Subedar, Subedar, Subedar Major and then to the rank of Honarary Captain. He claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs on account of loss of promotion to those ranks and ultimately the conferment of the status of Honorary Captain. He lost in the shape of earnings also after his invalidation from the army. Afflicted with permanent disability, he would not be able to earn that much which he would have earned had he been allowed to remain in the army. 2. Gajjan Singh respondent contested this application. It was denied that he authored this accident. Bus was running at a normal speed. Brake pedal did not function properly at that time. He applied the brakes but the pedal again did not function and was lying down due to the leakage of oil pressure. He asked the passengers to go to the back seats from the front seats so that their lives could be saved and the passengers went to back seats and caught hold of handles of the seats as advised by him. On both sides of the road, there were ditches and trees. It was found that near the barrier, truck No. PUC 4157 was standing on the road and immediately another bus from Chandigarh side was coming and was to cross truck No. PUC 4157. Seeing no alternative, he downed the gear, further slowed the speed and tried to overtake truck No. PUC 4157 parked but as the bus came from front side the bus in question hit the stationary truck. 3. Rest of the respondents were proceeded ex parte. Names of the insurer of the said truck were not disclosed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by Gajjan Singh respondent while driving bus No. HRU 8391 ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom ? OPP 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by Gajjan Singh respondent while driving bus No. HRU 8391 ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom ? OPP 4. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala found Gajjan Singh respondent to have authored this accident because of rash and negligent driving of this bus by him on the relevant date and time causing him fracture of right tibia which culminated into permanent disability leading to his being invalided from the army service and thus the demise of his army career and if he had continued in the army, he would have reached the rank of honorary Captain in a span of 32 years. In consequence, he awarded him Rs. 72,000/- as compensation applying 12 as multiplier and assessing Rs. 6,000/- as loss in his income per year. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him, Harvinder Singh claimant has come up before this court in this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional General, Haryana and have gone through the record. 6. Harvinder Singh claimant (AW1) stated in terms of what he had stated in the claim petition. He has stated that he suffered injuries due to the accident which find mention in the medical report and the accident was authored by Gajjan Singh who was driving this bus rashly, negligently and at a fast speed. He was given plaster at Military Hospital where he remained admitted for about 14 days as an indoor patient. He was then referred to Command Hospital, Chandigarh where he remained admitted for 9 months as indoor patient. He was operated at three places of the body. He was discharged on 22.5.86. He was declared unfit by the medical board of the Command Hospital. Earlier he was declared temporarily unfit twice thereafter he was declared permanently unfit. He was invalided from the army service due to this permanent disability. Nothing favourable to the respondent State of Haryana could be elicited during his cross examination. He was discharged on 22.5.86. He was declared unfit by the medical board of the Command Hospital. Earlier he was declared temporarily unfit twice thereafter he was declared permanently unfit. He was invalided from the army service due to this permanent disability. Nothing favourable to the respondent State of Haryana could be elicited during his cross examination. It was suggested to him that on seeing the bus coming at a distance of about 2-3 furlongs from Lalru bus stand, Gajjan Singh applied brakes and the brakes did not work due to mechanical defect and he warned the passengers travelling by his bus at a loud voice that they should switch on to the back seats as the brakes had failed in order to avert the accident with the bus coming from the opposite side, this accident took place which had to take place. Respondent State of Haryana did not lead any evidence to substantiate the case set up by them in their written statement. Claimant had thus to be believed by the MACT without there being any other option before him. Subedar Amar Singh AW4 stated that the claimant invalided from army service because of the opinion of the Medical Board that he was permanently unfit. He was graded in category C so far as the permanent disability is concerned which is that he could not be retained in the army and he could not be given further promotion. He was to continue for 32 years more and if he had continued for this period, he would have reached the rank of Honorary Captain. 7. MACT has been niggardly in its approach while awarding compensation to the claimant. He was 29 years old. In this case, 16 should have been applied as the multiplier and applying 16 as the multiplier, he should have been awarded Rs. 96,000/- as compensation for loss of income over the years. 8. Due to permanent disability which cost him his career in the army, he suffered mental pain. He suffered physical pain also due to his hospitalisation for a period of 9 months. He did not have to spend on medicines as they were supplied to him free of cost by the hospital authorities. Anyway, he must have been put on special diet for some time. He must have spent some money in travelling from his village to the Command Hospital. He did not have to spend on medicines as they were supplied to him free of cost by the hospital authorities. Anyway, he must have been put on special diet for some time. He must have spent some money in travelling from his village to the Command Hospital. He must have engaged some attendant to attend on him. Assuming that he did not engage any attendant, some one from his family must have spent some time on him. 9. Faced with this position, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submitted that he is being paid disability pension besides he has been paid gratuity etc. He submitted that if he could reach the status of honorary Captain, it could also be that he was weeded out of the army service due to some indiscipline. These are imponderable which should also be taken into account by the court while assessing the amount of compensation payable to him. Fact, however, remains that due to his invalidation from the army service, he suffered mental pain as we know "hope sustains life." A man is always optimistic so far as his career is concerned. On account of mental pain to him because of the loss of his army career, he has to be given some compensation. Similarly, he has to be given some compensation. Similarly, he has to be given some compensation on account of physical pain. He has to be given some compensation on account of having spent on travelling and so on. All told, he should have been allowed Rs. 1.20 lacs as compensation for the personal injury to him which brought about permanent disability and which put him to the loss of his army career. So, this appeal is allowed with costs. A sum of Rs. 1.20 lacs is awarded as compensation to the appellant payable by the Haryana Roadways/State of Haryana. On this amount of Rs. 1.20 lacs minus Rs. 72,000/- which he has already been paid, he shall be entitled to interest @ 12% from the date of application till realisation. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/-. This FAO is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.