JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment, I dispose of FAO No. 2086 of 1995 titled United India Insurance Company v. Jagjit Singh and others and Cross-objection No. 41-CII of 2000, as the appeal and the Cross-Objections have arisen from the same award dated 15.5.1995, passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar which awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by Shri Jagjit Singh and it was also ordered by the Tribunal that the amount of compensation shall be paid to the injured jointly and severally by all the respondents in the trial Court. The Tribunal also ordered that injured shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the date of the application till the realisation of the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Jagjit Singh son of Shri Sukhdev Singh, (respondent No. 1-Cross-objector) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against Manzoor Masih, Parkash Ram and United India Insurance Company and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 13.5 lacs on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which according to him, took place on 23.2.1993 at about 5.00 P.M. on G.T. Road at a distance of 1 km from Dhanowali Railway Crossing towards Phagwara. It was averred by the claimant that on 23.2.1993 at about 5.P.M. he along with Hari Singh was going on a scooter bearing registration No. IPQ 3093 from Jalandhar City towards their village Rurki. The scooter was allegedly being driven by Shri Hari Singh while the claimant was sitting on the pillion seat. As per the averments of the claimant, when they reached at a place one kilometre from Dhanowali Railway Crossing towards Phagwara side, a truck bearing registration No. PB-08D-5485, suddenly came from a service station and approached the G.T. Road negligently. The truck hit the scooter as a result of which the rear tyre of the truck passed over the left leg of the claimant and he received the multiple injuries. At the time of the accident the truck was being driven by Shri Manzoor Masih, respondent No. 1. The claimant was removed to Civil Hospital by respondent No. 1. He was admitted there as an indoor patient. At the time of the accident the truck was being driven by Shri Manzoor Masih, respondent No. 1. The claimant was removed to Civil Hospital by respondent No. 1. He was admitted there as an indoor patient. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 ran away with the truck as the condition of the claimant was serious so he was referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where the left leg of the claimant was amputated from above the left knee. The matter was reported to the police by the claimant and on his statement a case under sections 279/337/388 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No. 1. It is further alleged by the claimant that at time of the accident he was a young boy of 22 years and was performing the duties of a Granthi in Gurdwara of village Rurki and his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. As the left leg of the claimant was amputated, he is unable to do his work properly. He remained admitted for about 30 days in the hospital and spent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment which is still continuing. The accident had taken place on account of the negligence of respondent No. 1. The truck was owned by respondent No. 2 Shri Parkash Ram and it was insured with the appellant insurance company. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents who appeared and contested the case before the trial Court. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and the stand taken by them was that the accident had not taken place on account of the negligence of respondent No. 1. Rather, it took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the Scooter. These respondents, however, admitted that the truck was insured with respondent No. 3. As per the version of these respondents, respondent No. 1 was driving the truck on the G.T. Road at a very slow speed. Jagjit Singh and Hari Singh were going on the Scooter at a very fast speed from Jalandhar side and when they saw the truck coming from service station, Hari Singh lost the control of the scooter and hit it against the rear tyre of the truck. Jagjit Singh and Hari Singh were going on the Scooter at a very fast speed from Jalandhar side and when they saw the truck coming from service station, Hari Singh lost the control of the scooter and hit it against the rear tyre of the truck. As the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of Shri Hari Singh, the driver of the scooter, therefore, the claim petition should be dismissed. 4. Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company also filed the separate written statement and denied the allegations. It was however, pleaded by the Insurance company that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and he was also not carrying the route permit and fitness certificate in respect of the said truck. 5. The claimant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the respondents in which he reiterated his allegations made in the claim petition by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the claimant suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 23.2.1993 in the area of Dhannowali on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. PB-08D/5485 by respondent No. 1 ? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation ? If so, how much and from which of the respondents ? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence and other required documents in respect of his truck at the time of the alleged accident ? If so, its effect ? OPR-3. 4. Relief. To prove his case the claimant appeared as AW1. He examined Hari Singh as AW2, Dr. J.S. Bath as AW3, Dr. A.S. Saini as AW4 and Samuel Mall, Account Clerk as AW5. He also produced on record the copy of the FIR EX. A.1, bed head ticket Ex.A.2, disability certificate Ex.A.3, bills Ex.A.4 and A.5 and the copy of the medico-legal report Ex.A.6. 6. On the contrary, Parkash Ram owner of the truck appeared as RW1, and driver Manzoor Masih as RW2. The respondents also produced copy of the registration certificate Ex.R.1, copy of the fitness certificate Ex.R.2, copy of the route permit Ex.R.3 and the copy of the Insurance Policy Ex.R.4. 7. No evidence was led on behalf of the Insurance Company. 6. On the contrary, Parkash Ram owner of the truck appeared as RW1, and driver Manzoor Masih as RW2. The respondents also produced copy of the registration certificate Ex.R.1, copy of the fitness certificate Ex.R.2, copy of the route permit Ex.R.3 and the copy of the Insurance Policy Ex.R.4. 7. No evidence was led on behalf of the Insurance Company. The learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. Issue No. 2 was partly decided in favour of the claimant and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs by way of compensation. Issue No. 3 was decided against the Insurance Company. Resultantly, the claim petition was partly allowed declaring that claimant injured is entitled to Rs. 1,40,000/- by way of compensation besides interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment. 8. The award was given on 15.5.1995. Not satisfied with the award, the Insurance Company and the claimant have filed the appeal and the cross- objections respectively. 9. I have heard Shri Munishwar Puri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the cross-objector-respondent No. 1 and Shri Puneet Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 10. The learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments only in issues No. 2 and 3, therefore, I confine my discussion on these issues after affirming the finding on issue No. 1 11. Attacking the award and the cross-objection of his rivalry, the first submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Munishwar Puri was that the cross-objections filed by the claimant Shri Jagjit Singh are hopelessly time barred and, therefore, these cannot be looked into nor these can be acted upon. 12. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Shri Gill, has invited my attention to a judgment reported as 1985(2) PLR 335, State of Haryana v. Khalsa High School, Ambala City in which it was held that while computing limitation for the purpose of entertaining the cross-objections, limitation starts only after the notice of actual hearing is served. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, wants to distinguish this authority by stating that this judgment will apply when the respondent is ex parte. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument of Shri Puri. In the present case, it has been clearly stated in para No. 2 of the cross-objections that the main appeal had not been listed for regular hearing and, therefore, the cross-objection had been filed within limitation. The cross-objections were received in the Registry on 13.7.2000. On that day, the appeal had not been listed for regular hearing. In these circumstances, I repel the first argument of Shri Puri and hold that the cross objections are within limitation. 13. It was then submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Insurance Company had not been given the proper time by the Tribunal to prove that Shri Manzoor Masih had no valid driving licence. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant draws my attention to the application dated 5.5.1995 moved by respondent No. 3 i.e. the appellant in which it was alleged that respondent No. 1 though made a mention in his statement that he was having a valid driving licence which was placed on the court file yet respondent No. 1 has not filed any photostat copy of the driving licence nor disclosed the serial number or place of issuing authority in order to enable the insurance company to make proper verification. There is no merit in this contention. The onus of this issue was upon the Insurance Company. In these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company- appellant to produce such evidence from which it can be proved that the driver of the scooter had no valid driving licence. The record of the trial Court, however, shows that on 30.3.1995, respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and the owner filed an application and prayed to the Court that the clerk of the Court of Shri Ranjit Jain, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, alongwith Criminal File State v. Manzoor Masih FIR No. 24 dated 23.2.1993 under Sections 279/337/338 may be summoned. It clearly indicates that the driving licence of Shri Manzoor Masih must be attached on the criminal appeal. The particulars of the criminal file were already in the knowledge of the Insurance Company. It clearly indicates that the driving licence of Shri Manzoor Masih must be attached on the criminal appeal. The particulars of the criminal file were already in the knowledge of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had not taken any steps to bother about the examination of any witness to prove the driving licence of respondent No. 1. In view of the categorical stand of respondent No 1 that he was having a valid driving licence, it is difficult for me to accept the contention of the insurance company that respondent No. 1 Shri Manzoor Masih had no valid driving licence. In the reply dated 15.5.1995, it is categorically stated by Shri Manzoor Masih that the driving licence is on the Court file pending in the Court of Ranjit Jain, Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and that the Insurance Company had moved the application just to prolong the proceedings. Since respondent No. 3 did not lead any evidence, therefore, I affirm the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3. 14. It was then submitted on behalf of Shri Munishwar Puri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company-appellant that the compensation which has been awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side. 15. On the contrary, the counsel for the cross-objector (Injured) submitted that the Tribunal fell in error in awarding Rs. 50,000/- only under the head "permanent disability". Before I discuss the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties it will be proper for me to incorporate paras No. 13 to 17 of the impugned award, which are as under :- "13. In view of my finding on issue No. 1, the claimant is entitled to get the compensation from the respondents for the injuries received by him in the accident in question. Jagjit Singh, claimant, while in the witness box has deposed that after the accident, he was removed to civil Hospital, Jalandhar from where he was referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. The claimant has placed on record copy of his medical legal examination report Ex.A.6. The doctor had found a fracture of pelvis in his case besides other injuries. AW3 Dr. J.S. Bath, Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, also deposed that the claimant had also suffered a vascular injury which was major in nature to this left lower limb. The claimant has placed on record copy of his medical legal examination report Ex.A.6. The doctor had found a fracture of pelvis in his case besides other injuries. AW3 Dr. J.S. Bath, Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, also deposed that the claimant had also suffered a vascular injury which was major in nature to this left lower limb. Doctor A.S. Saini, Orthopaedic Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Jalandhar had examined the claimant on 31.3.1994 after his left leg had been amputated through thigh with stump of 10% below the greater trochanter left. Through his certificate Ex. AW3, doctor A.S. Saini had determined permanent disability of the claimant to the extent of 70%. According to the claimant, before the accident, he was working as Granthi at Gurdwara village of Rurki and he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month. He went on to say that because of the injuries suffered by him and amputation of his left leg he is unable to enjoy his married life and also after the accident, he has been rendered unable to do any work. Although, the claimant has suffered serious injuries including fracture of left pelvis and amputation of his left leg, yet, to my mind it has not materially affected his work as Granthi. All right the claimant must have suffered in enjoying his married life because of these injuries. The claimant was married before the accident and had children. Therefore, the prospects of future life keeping in view the profession which the claimant had undertaken is also not materially effected. 14. The claimant stated that he had to spend Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 55,000/- on his treatment. AW5 Semual Mall, Accounts Clerk proved that the claimant had paid a sum of Rs. 21,000/- and another sum of Rs. 4152/- to the Hospital authorities towards his treatment charges vide bills Exs.A.4 and A.5 respectively. Besides that, the claimant must have spent some amount on conveyance for going and coming back to the hospital. A considerable amount must have been spent by the claimant on special diets. Atleast for the period for which the claimant remained admitted in the hospital, he lost the earning which he would have otherwise earned had he not met with the accident. Therefore, in my view a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be adequate compensation under this head. 15. According to Dr. Atleast for the period for which the claimant remained admitted in the hospital, he lost the earning which he would have otherwise earned had he not met with the accident. Therefore, in my view a sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be adequate compensation under this head. 15. According to Dr. A.S. Saini (AW4) permanent disability in case of the claimant was to the extent of 70%. His left leg had been amputated as proved by the medical evidence. Learned counsel for the claimant cited before me Mangal Kishore Kaul v. Union of India, through its Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others reported in 1989(1) P.L.R. 576. In the said case, there was shortening of leg 2 inches and the Honble High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/-. The claimant also relied upon Dr. M.L. Sharma v. State of Haryana and another, reported in 1991(2) P.L.R. 309. On the other hand. Shri M.M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company relied upon Bachan Singh v. Punjab Roadways Depot, Jalandhar-II and others, 1994(1) PLR 23 in which case, the Honble High Court had awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss of pain, sufferings and injuries where permanent disability was to the tune of 55%. In another case, Harnam Singh v. Surinder Singh and another, reported in 1992 ACJ 290, a compensation of Rs. 78,000/- was awarded in case of amputation of right leg. I have carefully considered the contentions of the rival parties on the question of quantum of compensation and have also carefully gone through the authorised cited by both the parties. By now, it is well settled that broad principle to be kept in mind while awarding compensation to the injured party is that he be awarded such sum of money as will put him in the same position as would have been, if he had not sustained injuries. Though, no award of money can possibly compensate a man for such grievous injuries and above all in case of amputation of his leg, yet, for arriving at a fair compensation, all relevant circumstances; like image, future loss, permanent disability and loss of future enjoyment etc. are to be taken into account. In Mangal Kishor Kauls case (supra) the claimant was a student of M.Sc of Bio-Physics and remained hospitalized for three months. are to be taken into account. In Mangal Kishor Kauls case (supra) the claimant was a student of M.Sc of Bio-Physics and remained hospitalized for three months. His qualifications were the main consideration with the Honble High Court for arriving at the amount of compensation awarded to him. In case of Bachan Singhs case (supra) it is not clear from the facts of the case as to what was the age of the claimants and what were his qualifications. Therefore, the case in hand is to be viewed as per the facts involved in the present case. The claimant has not been able to prove by any cogent and reliable evidence that he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. But, keeping in view the permanent disability, loss of pain and suffering undergone by the claimant, I am of the view that another sum of Rs. 70,000/- shall be the most suitable and reasonable compensation for permanent disability suffered by the claimant and for the loss of future income. 16. The claimant was operated upon for amputation of his left leg and chances of future treatment for any complication which may rise in the case of the claimant can also not be over-ruled. Therefore, I am of the view that ends of justice shall be met if the claimant is awarded another sum of Rs. 20,000/- for such exigencies. Thus, in all the claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- by way of compensation. 17. The next vital question which shall arise in the present case is as to which of the respondents shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. Admittedly, Manzoor Masih, respondent No. 1, was the driver of the offending vehicle which was owned by respondent No. 2. Said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 Sh. M.M. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently contended that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, as per terms and condition of the Insurance Policy, Ex.R.4 the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation. Said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 Sh. M.M. Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vehemently contended that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, as per terms and condition of the Insurance Policy, Ex.R.4 the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay any compensation. Of course, the plea was taken by respondent No. 3 in its written reply that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and an issue in this respect was struck, yet, the Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to prove that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 while appearing in the witness box as AW2 deposed as RW2 categorically that he was issued a driving licence to drive heavy vehicles in the year 1984. It was twice got renewed by him. In cross-examination he stated that the said driving licence was on the file of the criminal case registered against him regarding this accident. He was not in possession of any receipt to show that the driving licence was lying in the Court. At the face of this stand of respondent No. 1, it was expected from the Insurance Company to get summoned the file of the criminal case and if the driving licence of respondent No. 1 was not there the contention of the insurance company could be sustained. Respondent No. 3 did not make any effort to summon the file of the criminal case registered against him in respect of the present accident, rather it had moved an application calling upon respondent No. 1 to produce his driving licence. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence. Therefore, in my view, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant as assessed by this Tribunal. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimant". In my opinion, the contention of Shri Puri is devoid of any merit. Further, I am of the opinion that there is a scope of enhancement of compensation. Let us see what is the damage done to the injured. After the accident, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where he was medically examined as per Ex.A.6. AW3 Dr. In my opinion, the contention of Shri Puri is devoid of any merit. Further, I am of the opinion that there is a scope of enhancement of compensation. Let us see what is the damage done to the injured. After the accident, the injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where he was medically examined as per Ex.A.6. AW3 Dr. J.S. Bath, Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar found a fracture of pelvis in this case besides other injuries. It was also deposed by this doctor that Shri Jagjit Singh suffered a vascular injury which was major in nature to his left lower limb. Dr. A.S. Saini, Orthopaedic Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Jalandhar deposed that the left leg of the injured was amputated through left thigh with stump of 10" below greater trenchant left and the disability of the injured has been declared permanent to the extent of 70%. The Tribunal only awarded Rs. 70,000/- by way of compensation. The Tribunal in para No. 13 admits by relying upon the statement of the claimant that on account of the amputation of his left leg he was unable to enjoy his married life and also after the accident he had been rendered unable to do any work. Also, it has been admitted by the Tribunal that the injured suffered serious injuries including fracture of left pelvis and amputation of his left leg. Yet the Tribunal fell in error by saying that the work of the injured has not been materially affected as a Granthi. It is a case of loss of very vital limb. The disability is of such a nature that even the personality of a person has decreased considerably. I have also to take notice that injured was married. He had children and the future of his life has been materially affected as he has become a handicap person for all times to come. Even he has to walk for a yard he requires the assistance either of a lathi or of a person. He cannot walk freely like an ordinary person. 17. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to enhance the compensation under the head "permanent disability" from, Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,30,000/-. 18. With regard to the other claims, I am not in a position to make any enhancement. He cannot walk freely like an ordinary person. 17. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to enhance the compensation under the head "permanent disability" from, Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 1,30,000/-. 18. With regard to the other claims, I am not in a position to make any enhancement. Thus, in my opinion, the claimant ought to have been awarded rupees two lacs by way of compensation instead of Rs. 1,40,000/-. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Puri has relied upon several authorities and I will like to make a reference of those one by one. The first judgment is 1999 ACJ 1599 K. Narayanaswamy v. Mukunda and others of the Honble Supreme Court in which the Honble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- in a case of injured aged 30 years employed as a cleaner. It was a case of amputation of hand and fracture of ribs. The cited judgment cannot be relied upon for the simple reasons; firstly, I am handicap of the facts of this case; secondly this SLP was filed in the Supreme Court in the year 1995. I am not in a position to know when the accident in the cited case took place. Every case has to be viewed on its own facts and circumstances. Here is a case where a young boy has lost left leg. He has been crippled. He is not in a position to perform his duties. 20. The counsel then relied upon 1989(1) PLR 159, United India Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and another. This judgment again cannot be made the basis for the simple reason that the accident took place in 1982. In our case the accident took place in 1993. The value of the money had considerably decreased with the passage of time. Reliance was also placed on 1993(3) PLR 317, Rajiv Kumar v. P.R.T.C. Patiala. In this cited case the accident had taken place on 26.2.1983, 10 years earlier to the accident which had taken place in our case. The High Court awarded Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation. If this criteria is made a yard stick for our purpose, then the compensation of rupees two lacs which I have awarded through this judgment cannot be said to be on the higher side. Counsel Shri Puri also relied upon 1988(2) PLR 608, Narinder Pal Singh v. Punjab State. The High Court awarded Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation. If this criteria is made a yard stick for our purpose, then the compensation of rupees two lacs which I have awarded through this judgment cannot be said to be on the higher side. Counsel Shri Puri also relied upon 1988(2) PLR 608, Narinder Pal Singh v. Punjab State. Again this was a case of the year 1984. My attention was invited to 1994(1) PLR 23, Bachan Singh v. Punjab Roadways Depot Jalandhar. In this cited case the accident took place in the year 1984. The disability was 55%. In our case the accident is of 1993 and the disability is 70%. Yet reliance was placed on 1999 ACJ 468, Kailash Chand Jain v. Gurdip Singh and others. It was a case of 1985. The disability was 85%, still the Court awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- by taking notice of the fact that the injured would procure an artificial limb for his survival. If this judgment is made as a yardstick then the compensation of rupees two lacs in the present case under all heads cannot be said to be on the higher side. Rather in my opinion in it would be a just compensation. 21. The counsel for the injured Shri Gill, relied upon a judgment of Rajasthan High court reported as 1992 ACJ 194, Sitaram v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others and submitted that the cited case was a case of amputation of the left foot and the High Court awarded Rs. 2,31,000/- by way of compensation and the accident was of the year 1984. On this analogy, Mr. Gill made a prayer that his client should be awarded rupees four lacs minimum. Reliance was also placed on 2000 ACJ 174, Raj Kumar v. Swaran Singh and others where the left leg of the injured was amputated above the knee and the injured suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85% and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- from Rs. 70,000/- by the High Court. 22. Every case has to depend on its own facts and circumstances as I have stated above. Two cases can hardly meet with each other and that is the reason the legislature has used the word "just compensation" in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 23. 4,00,000/- from Rs. 70,000/- by the High Court. 22. Every case has to depend on its own facts and circumstances as I have stated above. Two cases can hardly meet with each other and that is the reason the legislature has used the word "just compensation" in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 23. I have considered all the prons and cons of this case and hold that the injured should get a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- besides interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment and I order accordingly. Consequently, the finding on issue No. 2 stands modified. 24. The net result is that FAO No. 2086 of 1995 United India Insurance Co. v. Jagjit Singh and others is hereby dismissed while the cross-objection No. 41- CII of 2000, filed by Shri Jagjit Singh injured-claimant are allowed in part and the compensation is awarded to the injured as indicated above. The Insurance Company shall make the residue payment within one month from today. Appeal dismissed.