DEEPAK VERMA, S. K. SETH, JJ. ( 1 ) ON account of the road accident, which took place on 4. 3. 1999, the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries, therefore, the third Additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Khargone in Claim Case No. 59 of 2002 awarded a sum of Rs. 96,000 to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement. ( 2 ) THE appellant, an electrician by profession, aged about 28 years, was travelling as a bona fide passenger in the bus bearing registration No. MP 09-S 5341. At the time the bus was being driven by respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 1. On account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 2 while negotiating a turn at a very high speed, the door of the bus got opened and the appellant sitting at the corner seat near the door was thrown out of the vehicle. As a result he sustained fracture in the left leg. Initially the appellant was given treatment at Khargone and later on he was referred to the M. Y. Hospital, Indore and from there he went to Gokuldas Hospital where he remained admitted for a month. ( 3 ) DR. Rajendra Joshi, AW 1 was examined to prove the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the appellant. According to Dr. Joshi on account of the injury on the left knee the blood vessels were damaged and ultimately the left leg above knee joint had to be amputated. Dr. Joshi, has stated that the appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70 per cent. The respondents have not led any evidence in rebuttal. Thus, we find that the appellant sustained grievous injuries which led to the amputation of leg and the permanent disability of the appellant so far as the left leg is concerned is almost 100 per cent and in the context of the whole body it is 70 per cent as has been proved by the medical expert's evidence. ( 4 ) THE finding of the Tribunal that the accident is on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 is not assailed before us, hence the same is confirmed. ( 4 ) THE finding of the Tribunal that the accident is on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 is not assailed before us, hence the same is confirmed. The finding of the Tribunal that at the time of the accident it was being driven by respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 1 is also not challenged. Hence the same is also confirmed. Thus, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant. ( 5 ) FROM the evidence on record it is clear that the appellant had to undergo a long treatment. He must have incurred substantial amount on his treatment. On account of the amputation of leg the appellant who is only 28 years of age has to walk with the help of crutches throughout his life. The amount of pain and agony which the appellant is required to undergo cannot be described in words. The appellant has to bear with permanent disability throughout his life. In our opinion the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. The same deserves to be enhanced suitably. Looking to the nature and extent of injuries and the disability, the appellant may go for an artificial leg, cannot be ruled out. In our considered opinion an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 would be the just and proper amount of compensation which the appellant is entitled to receive from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally. This amount of Rs. 3,00,000 is inclusive of past and future medical expenses. ( 6 ) THE appeal is partly allowed and the award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid. The respondent No. 1 shall bear the costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. Appeal partly allowed. .