JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award Dated 17th Jan. 1995 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter for short 'Tribunal') in Claim case No. 59/92 (92/92) whereby the award of Rs. 38,500/- was passed in favour of the appellant claimant (hereinafter for short the 'claimant') and against respondents. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal the claimant filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. Briefly stated the facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are that a claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 2, 56,500/- in all under various heads. The case of the claimant as set up by the claimant is that on 6-12-91 while the claimant - Ram Kishan was proceeding from his village Pansal to Bhilwara on a cycle at about 9 - 9.30 a.m. when he reached near Badal Talkies a bus No. RRR 720 owned by respondent No. 1 which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 2 came from behind and hit the claimant resulting thereby that the claimant fell on the road and he was run over by the bus. Due to this accident, the claimant sustained various injuries on his person, which resulted in fracture of pelvis with separation of public symphysis with fracture of iliac bone and pubic Rami and ischium with pelvic obliquity, as such he sustained various injuries including the injury of base of it. hip. Crime report of this accident was lodged with police station, Pratapnagar, Bhilwara. 4. After the investigation, police laid challan against respondent No. 2 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338, I.P.C. Soon after the accident, the claimant was taken to MGH, Bhilwara wherein he was admitted and remained under treatment from 6-12-91 to 22-1-1992 for a period of 48 days. 5. It was averred that thereafter also the claimant remained under treatment for a considerable long period and in spite of prolonged treatment, the injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident resulted in permanent partial disability to the extent of 50 per cent. At the relevant time the claimant was an employee of Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) of State of Rajasthan and used to be paid salary of Rs. 1400/- per month. At the relevant time the claimant was an employee of Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) of State of Rajasthan and used to be paid salary of Rs. 1400/- per month. It was also averred that after the working hours and on holidays he used to undertake the work of hair dresser by which his monthly income was Rs. 600/- and as such according to the claimant he used to earn Rs. 2000/ - per month. A claim was laid for the loss of income during the period of hospitalization and while claimant remained under treatment, the expenses incurred on the treatment, nourhished diet and damages to cycle, physical pain and suffering and also the mental agony suffered by claimant and for permanent partial disablement as also for the loss of income for present and future. 6. The respondents filed respective written statement before the Tribunal. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and tried the case. 7. In support of the claim petition, the claimant himself got examined as A.W. 1 and placed on record a certificate of permanent disablement Ex. 1, First Information Report (F.I.R.) Ex. 2, Charge sheet Ex. 3, Site Map and Site Inspection Memo Ex. 4, Injury Report Ex. 5, Report of Radiologist Ex. 6, Discharge Ticket from MGH Bhilwara Ex. 7, Salary Certificate Ex. 8, and Office orders Ex. 9. 8. While deciding Issue No. 1 which relates to rash and negligent act of respondent No. 2 the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No. 2, the driver of the offending bus and as such issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 9. While deciding Issue No. 2. the learned Tribunal computed compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 38,500/- in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 10. Issue No. 3 was not pressed by the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, it was decided against respondent No. 3. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant vehemently contended that injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident has resulted in permanent partial disablement to the extent of 50 per cent. 38,500/- in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 10. Issue No. 3 was not pressed by the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, it was decided against respondent No. 3. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant vehemently contended that injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident has resulted in permanent partial disablement to the extent of 50 per cent. He further submitted that age of the claimant at the relevant date of accident was 35 years and he has suffered and would suffer the injuries and permanent partial disablement for rest of his span of life. He further contended that the appellant has incurred the expenses for treatment, nourishment and special diet, addendants conveyance etc. He was hospitalized initially at MGH, Bhilwara for about 48 days and thereafter he under-went treatment at SMS Hospital, Jaipur and remained admitted therein for a considerable period. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that looking to the nature of injuries which resulted in numerous fractures of hip bones, and permanent disablement, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and contended that a suitable compensation as claimed by the claimant deserves to be awarded. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, I have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated evidence on record and considered rival contentions. 13. A.W. 1 Ram Kishan stated that he was run over by the offending bus which resulted in fracture of both the hip bones as well as fracture of left leg. He remained admitted at Bhilwara hospital from 6th Dec. 1991 to 22nd Feb. 1992 and thereafter he was referred to S.M.S., Hospital, Jaipur where he remained admitted for 8-9 days. He further stated that he remained under treatment even after having discharged from the aforesaid two hospitals and in all, he remained on leave for 5 months and 17 days. He further stated that at the relevant time, he was employed as peon in the department of PHED on monthly salary of Rs. 1700/- per month. He has placed on record the salary certificate Ex. 8 by his employer wherein Rs. 1702/- p.m. is shown as salary. He has also placed on record the office order Ex. 9 with regard to the period, he remained on leave i.e. 164 days. He has also placed on record the discharge certificate Ex. 1700/- per month. He has placed on record the salary certificate Ex. 8 by his employer wherein Rs. 1702/- p.m. is shown as salary. He has also placed on record the office order Ex. 9 with regard to the period, he remained on leave i.e. 164 days. He has also placed on record the discharge certificate Ex. 7 from MGH, Bhilwara and a photo-stat copy of discharge ticket of SMS Medical College Hospital, Jaipur showing his date of admission and discharge as also Bed Head Ticket of MGH, Bhilwara and SMS Medical College Hospital, Jaipur. He has also placed on record the certificate of permanent disablement Ex. 1 wherein according to the opinion of Orthopaedic Surgeon, the aforesaid injuries resulted in permanent partial disablement to the extent of 50 per cent. 14. A.W. 1 further stated that he has incurred a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of treatment at Bhilwara and Rs. 5,000/- for treatment at Jaipur. He also stated that he has incurred Rs. 5,000/- for nourished diet and about Rs. 800/- for conveyance charges and Rs. 3000/- for the attendants, while he remained hospitalized where he was to engage two attendants. With regards to his income he has categorically stated that he used to earn Rs. 1700/- per month as salary from the employer and Rs. 300/- to 350/- per month by undertaking work of hair dresser etc. As after the duty hours, he used to under-take such work. He further stated that movement of left leg restricted and he is unable to walk properly and is require to move with the help of crutches. The statement of this witness so far as it relates to issue of quantum of compensation remained un-rebutted. The respondents did not lead any evidence with regards to income, treatment expenses, expenses incurred on nourishment and diet, conveyance charges, attendants as also with regards to the permanent disablement. 15. The learned Tribunal while deciding the issue of quantum, made the following assessment : 1. For loss of salary Rs. 4,400/ 2. Treatment expenses, and nourished diet Rs. 1500/-. 3. Attendants and conveyance charges Rs. 5,800/-. 4. Damages to cycle Rs. 300/ 5. Pain and sufferings for permanent disablement Rs. 20,000/ 16. I have given my thoughful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. For loss of salary Rs. 4,400/ 2. Treatment expenses, and nourished diet Rs. 1500/-. 3. Attendants and conveyance charges Rs. 5,800/-. 4. Damages to cycle Rs. 300/ 5. Pain and sufferings for permanent disablement Rs. 20,000/ 16. I have given my thoughful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. In my considered opinion the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate, and do not commensurate with the injuries and disablement resulted due to aforesaid accident. 17. It is settled law that in appeal, the interference is made for quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive as the case may be. Obviously, in the instant case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate looking to the nature of injuries, and permanent partial disablement, and the expenses incurred by the claimants therefore, it is a fit case which needs interference in this appeal. 18. In view of the aforesaid evidence of the claimant and material placed on record, it is established that the claimant sustained various grievous injuries on his person which resulted in permanent partial disablement to the extent of 50 per cent. Ex-1 shows that the injuries resulted in fracture of pelvis with multiple injuries with foot drop left side due to run over injury. X-ray pelvis showing old fractue pelvis with separation of public (pelvic) symphysis with fracture of iliac bone and public (pelvic) Rami and ischium with pelvic obliquity. Due to these injuries the claimant has been rendered physical incapacitated to walk properly, or to lift weight or to do hard work or to do his routine work permanently. It has also been established from the evidence that the claimant remained hospitalized at various hospitals as discussed and noticed above and under-went treatment as he sustained fractures of both the hip bones and left leg. This led him to remain to lay complete bedridden for a considerable long period and as such for all these long period of hospitalization and even thereafter while he remained under treatment, he needed attendant. Under these circumstances it is matter of common knowledge that the claimant had incurred expenses for the treatment, nourishment and special diet, the expenses of attendants and their lodging and boarding and therefore, the claimant is required to be compensated adequately. 19. Under these circumstances it is matter of common knowledge that the claimant had incurred expenses for the treatment, nourishment and special diet, the expenses of attendants and their lodging and boarding and therefore, the claimant is required to be compensated adequately. 19. It is really difficult in this background to assess exact amount of physical pain and mental agony suffered by the claimant as he became life long handicapped. Undisputedly injuries resulted in permanent partial disablement to the exent of 50 per cent, though it is impossible to calculate the exact loss with human suffering or permanent personal deprication, looking to the nature of permanent disablement, age of the claimant, the compensation, which commensurate with the loss sustained deserves to be awarded. In R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 Acc CJ 366 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under (para 10) : "It is really difficult in this background to access the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an 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 sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." 20. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head "pain and suffering and loss of amenities." Although in that case, the claimant could only move with wheel chair. In the instant case, as established from the evidence on record that claimant is not in a position to move without crutches, therefore, in my considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be just and proper compensation for physical pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injuries and disablement normal longevity of the claimant would be shortened, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life etc. 21. 50,000/- would be just and proper compensation for physical pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injuries and disablement normal longevity of the claimant would be shortened, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life etc. 21. Coming to the compensation awarded under the head of pecuniary loss in this case the injuries sustained, which resulted in permanent partial disablement of 50 per cent and, therefore, loss of income for present and future is also required to be computed. Although the claimant is still in employment but even then because of disablement his earning capacity has substantially been reduced. More particularly, the work which he was to under-take after duty hours and on holidays but on account of disablement, he would not be in a position to undertake such work. Not only this, after retirement from service also he would not able to earn his livelihood because of permanent disablement and as such, in totality of facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper to take the figure of Rs. 450/- per month as loss of income by taking into account the future prospects. This amount needs to be multiplied by suitable multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant. The age of claimant on the date of accident is 35 years and therefore in the facts and (circumstances of the case appropriate multiplier of 16 years purchase factor would be just and proper. Thus, Rs. 450 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 86,400/-. 22. It is established from the evidence that the claimant remained hospitalized and under treatment for long period and for that he remained on leave for 5 months and 17 days as such he is entitled to loss of income for that period which works out to @ Rs. 1700 x 5 = 8500/-. 23. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1500/- under the head of treatment expenses and the expenses incurred for nourished diet etc. It has been established from the unrebutted testimony of the claimant that he has incurred Rupees 20,000/- for the treatment at Bhilwara and Rs. 5000/- for the treatment at Jaipur and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been reimbursed by his employer. This amount also appears to be at lower side. It has been established that the claimant remained under prolonged treatment. 5000/- for the treatment at Jaipur and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been reimbursed by his employer. This amount also appears to be at lower side. It has been established that the claimant remained under prolonged treatment. It is quite likely that the claimant must have incurred expenses towards the treatment, nourished diet, conveyance, lodging and boarding and on attendants. Under all these heads I consider it just and proper a sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be reasonable compensation for these various heads. For the damages to the cycle the Tribunal awarded Rs. 300/- which appears to be just and proper. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,50,200/- as compensation (rounded up to Rs. 1,50,000/-). 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal is allowed and amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 38,500/- to Rs. 1,50,000/. This amount shall carry the interest at the rate of 12% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claims petition till the date of realization. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******