JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Shri Madan Lal Chandna has filed the present F.A.O. against Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter called the Corporation) and its employee Shri Jagdish Chander, and it has been directed against the award dated 13.10.1992 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rewari, which awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the appellant by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by him, besides interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant Madan Lal Chandna filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Corporation and its driver Jagdish Chander and claimed compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 17.8.1990. According to the appellant, he was travelling in the Corporations bus bearing registration No. RNP-3236 on 17.8.1990. The bus left Delhi at 6.50 p.m. and when it reached at Dharuhera at about 9.00 p.m., the bus was stopped by its driver and the passengers were told by the driver that the bus had been stopped for taking tea, meals etc. The bus stayed there for about 30 minutes and it left Dharuhera at about 9.30 p.m. The appellant was sitting on a seat near the window. One Sham Lal resident of Narnaul was also travelling in the same bus. The driver of the bus was driving it at a very fast speed and he appeared to be under the influence of liquor. After about 10 minutes journey from Dharuhera the bus reached at Rewari turn when one truck was seen coming from the front side. The appellant was sitting near the window with his right elbow on the window. When the driver of the bus applied brakes all of a sudden the appellant felt a jerk and his elbow slipped a bit outside the window and in the mean time the other vehicle crossed the bus by rubbing its right side. The elbow of the appellant was crushed. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Rewari in the same bus as the passengers of the bus forced the driver to take the bus to the hospital. Sham Lal also accompanied the appellant to the hospital and the appellant asked him to inform Dr. Narula at Narnaul, who was the relative of the appellant. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Rewari in the same bus as the passengers of the bus forced the driver to take the bus to the hospital. Sham Lal also accompanied the appellant to the hospital and the appellant asked him to inform Dr. Narula at Narnaul, who was the relative of the appellant. The appellant was given first aid at Rewari and thereafter his son and Dr. Narula took him to Delhi and got him admitted in Mool Chand Hospital, New Delhi. On 18.8.1990 his right arm was amputated from above the elbow. 3. The appellant was posted as Asstt. Engineer in Public Works Department, Delhi, but he retired in April, 1990. He sought employment with M/s Jyoti Sarup Mittal as Project Engineer at a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month in June, 1990, but when he met with the said accident on 17.8.1990 and remained under treatment for a considerable period and his hand was amputated, so he left the job. With these broad allegations, the appellant claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lac. 4. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondent. The driver failed to appear despite service, so he was proceeded ex parte. The petition was contested by the Corporation on the ground that no accident had taken place nor the appellant was travelling in the bus in question. It was also alleged that the appellant is an old man and he sought no re-employment anywhere. The bus was going from Delhi to Sikkar and no accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the bus. In fact, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the appellant himself as he was travelling with his right elbow outside the window of the bus. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in this accident which took place on 17.8.1990 near Dharuhera ? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP 3. Relief." 6. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of proceedings, issue no.1 was decided in favour of the appellant. Issue Nerative Order 2 was partly decided in favour of the appellant and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. OPP 3. Relief." 6. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of proceedings, issue no.1 was decided in favour of the appellant. Issue Nerative Order 2 was partly decided in favour of the appellant and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the claimant/appellant by way of compensation for the following reasons as given in Para No. 8 of the impugned award :- "8. The petitioner is a retired Asstt. Engineer. He retired in April, 1990 from Public Works Department, Delhi. He got re-employed in M/s Jyoti Sarup Mittal Contractor and Builders, Faridabad since 1.6.90 at Rs. 3500/- p.m. However, after the accident his right hand was amputated and so he had to leave that job. Thus according to the statement of the petitioner and that of Joginder Singh PW1 an employee of the firm and the certificate Ex. P18, he worked with the aforesaid firm for about 2-1/2 months. But no other document has been placed on record i.e. roll call register or acquaintance register etc. However, as he retired as Asstt. Engineer, he could be re-employed in any firm of Contractor and Builders. At the time of his retirement, he was getting Rs. 3050/- as basic pay and Rs. 700/- on account of DA. He had not sought re- employment on some permanent base as according to Joginder Singh, he used to work on 5/6 days in a week. He could render only technical advice to the builders or prepare maps etc. He can render the advice even at present but the drawing work can not be done now. Still the guidance for drawing work even can be given;. Moreover, no part time re-employment could be at more that Rs. 2000/-. He has placed on record the receipt/bills regarding purchase of medicines and payment in the hospital and the total amount comes to about Rs. 12000/-. Thus, keeping all these facts in view, he is awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- on his treatment and Rs. 5,000/- on account of pain and suffering. He is also awarded an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on account of permanent disability and loss of earning. So, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 80,000/-." 7. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal by the injured. 8. 15,000/- on his treatment and Rs. 5,000/- on account of pain and suffering. He is also awarded an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on account of permanent disability and loss of earning. So, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 80,000/-." 7. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal by the injured. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 9. It is proved on the record that the injured at the time of his retirement was working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department, Delhi and he was re-employed with M/s Jyoti Sarup Mittal, Contractors and Builders, Faridabad since 1.6.1990 at Rs. 3,500/- per month. He was a technical hand and he could sell his consultancy at this rate which was not on the higher side. It is also proved on the record that the right arm of the appellant had to be amputated, as a result of which he had to lose the job. At the time of retirement the appellant was getting Rs. 3,500/- as basic pay and Rs. 700/- on account of D.A. The Tribunal has not rightly assessed the compensation in this case. It has lost the vital aspect of the case by not noticing that this is a case of amputation of right arm of a technical person. Loss of limb, especially of right arm, is of utmost importance. With this loss the injured must have suffered lot of miseries. He must have suffered financially. He must have remained under pain and agony. He has suffered deformity of body. So much so, he had to lose his job. The accident had taken place in the year 1990. Even after ten years the appellant is surviving. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 60,000/- on account of permanent disability, Rs. 15,000/- for the treatment and Rs. 5,000/- on account of pain and suffering. The disability suffered by the appellant as per the disability certificate is 90 per cent permanent of the right upper limb. Vide Exs. P18 and P19 it has been certified by M/s Jyoti Sarup Mittal about the pay of the injured. Ex. P18 is the certificate of pay and Ex. P19 is the appointment letter. Ex. P22 is the medical report of the injured. 10. Vide Exs. P18 and P19 it has been certified by M/s Jyoti Sarup Mittal about the pay of the injured. Ex. P18 is the certificate of pay and Ex. P19 is the appointment letter. Ex. P22 is the medical report of the injured. 10. Keeping in view all the factors of the case, especially the amputation of the vital limb of the body, I award a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- by way of just compensation. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition till payment. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is hereby modified and it is hereby declared that the amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- is awarded as just compensation to the appellant which shall be payable by respondent No. 1 Corporation. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant within two months from today. The appellant shall also get Rs. 2,000/- by way of costs of this appeal. Appeal partly allowed