Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of F. A. O. Nos.568, 569, 570, 571 and 875 of 1994 as all these appeals have arisen out of a common award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), ropar. 2. On 28.5.1990 Sarabjit Singh, the deceased, had gone to Ropar in the car no. PER 9110. When he was returning to mohali in his car, Jasbir Singh, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, ropar, Kewal Mehra, Taxation Inspector, mohali, Sushma Kumari and Jaswinderjit kaur, Excise and Taxation Officers were also going from Ropar to Mohali in the government vehicle. On the way at about 7 kilometres from Ropar, the said Government vehicle went out of order and Kewal mehra signalled car No. PBR 9110 to stop. Sarabjit Singh knew Kewal Mehra. Accordingly, he stopped the car. All the aforesaid persons boarded the car for going to mohali. The claimants have maintained that the car was being driven slowly and on left hand side of the road. At about 4.30 p. m. when the car reached 3 kilometres ahead of Kurali towards Mohali, a truck no. PEG 1417 came at a fast speed from behind and its front portion struck the back of the car. The truck driver was stated to be very rash and negligent in his driving. He did not observe the traffic rules. A bus no. CHW 7940 was stated to be coming from the opposite side and in a fast speed. The driver of the bus drove the bus on the wrong side and the front portion of the bus struck the front portion of the car. The bus dragged the car towards its left side. Both the truck driver and the bus driver were negligent in causing the accident with the car. It is claimed that there was no negligence of the driver of the car. All the occupants of the car received injuries. Sarabjit singh, driver of the car died immediately after the receipt of the injuries. On that basis, the claimants filed claim petitions claiming compensation. 3. Jai Paul Singh, the respondent No.1, is the driver of the truck. Vijay Kumar aggarwal, respondent No.2 is the owner of the truck. The truck was insured with united India Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No.3. On that basis, the claimants filed claim petitions claiming compensation. 3. Jai Paul Singh, the respondent No.1, is the driver of the truck. Vijay Kumar aggarwal, respondent No.2 is the owner of the truck. The truck was insured with united India Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No.3. Chandigarh Transport Undertaking is respondent No.4 and Chandigarh administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh has been arrayed as respondent No.5 as the owner of the bus No. CHW 7940. Kishori Lal, respondent No.6 is the driver of the bus. 4. The claim petitions filed by claimants were contested by the respondents. Separate written statements were filed. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. They claimed that on 28.5.1990 Sarabjit Singh deceased along with other claimants was returning in his car from Ropar to Mohali. Sarabjit Singh was driving the car rashly and negligently and when the car reached near village chanalon, the car driver overtook a truck ahead of it and in the process of overtaking, the car struck into the back side of that truck. The driver of the car fell out of the car. The car went out of control and struck into the CTU bus coming from the opposite side. On that basis, the respondents have claimed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver. The respondent No.3, insurance company which insured the truck had also contested the claim of the claimants by taking similar pleas. 6. In a separate written statement filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, they also claimed that the accident had not taken place due to any fault of Kishori Lal, driver of bus No. CHW 7940. It was claimed that the bus was on route from Chandigarh to una and when it reached two miles short of Kurali at about 4.30 p. m. , the said car came from the opposite side. Kishori Lal, driver of the bus was driving the bus slowly and cautiously and the said truck came from behind the car. It was at a fast speed. The car driver applied brakes. The truck hit the back of the car from behind. Due to jerk, the door of the car opened and the driver fell down on the road. The car went out of control. It hit the right side front bumper of the bus. It was at a fast speed. The car driver applied brakes. The truck hit the back of the car from behind. Due to jerk, the door of the car opened and the driver fell down on the road. The car went out of control. It hit the right side front bumper of the bus. The truck driver after hitting the car sped away the truck from the place of accident. The accident had taken place due to the fault of Jai Paul Singh, who was driver of the truck. 7. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the truck and of the bus. The liability was apportioned at 50:50. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to various claimants, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded rs.1,64,600 to the heirs of the deceased sarabjit Singh. For the claim with regard to the injuries of Jasbir Singh, a compensation of Rs.2,39,510 was awarded. The injured Kewal Mehra was awarded a compensation of Rs.90,000. A compensation of Rs.2; 15,000 was awarded to Jaswinderjit Kaur claimant-injured. Similarly for the injuries caused to the claimant Sushma kumari, an amount of Rs.1,80,000 was awarded. 8. The claimants-petitioners felt dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted to them and, therefore, have filed the present appeals. 9. It may be noticed at this stage that no appeal/cross-objection has been filed by the respondents challenging the findings with regard to the findings of rashness and negligence returned by the learned Tribunal. Neither any challenge has been made to the apportionment of the compensation between the owners of the truck and the bus in the ratio of 50:50. In these circumstances, the said finding with regard to the rashness and negligence of the truck driver as well as bus driver have attained finality and as such are affirmed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 11. Since the appeals have been filed by various claimants challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and claiming enhancement thereof, therefore, it would be proper to discuss the claim of each of the claimants separately. Claim of the heirs of Sarabjit Singh: 12. 11. Since the appeals have been filed by various claimants challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and claiming enhancement thereof, therefore, it would be proper to discuss the claim of each of the claimants separately. Claim of the heirs of Sarabjit Singh: 12. The evidence on the record shows that Sarabjit Singh deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of his death in the accident. The claim petition has been filed by his widow Kanwal Parkash Kaur, harjit Kaur, his daughter, Indervir Singh, his son, Surjit Kaur, his mother. At the time of his death, Sarabjit Singh was working as a clerk in the State Co-operative milk Producers Federation. The learned tribunal has found that his salary was rs.2,000 per month. The car of deceased sarabjit Singh was also damaged. It was claimed by the claimants that the loss of the car was to the extent of Rs.40,000. Learned Tribunal has found that it was not proved that aforesaid Sarabjit Singh was working as a clerk and, therefore, it could not be taken that his salary was Rs.2,000 per month. Accordingly, his monthly income was assessed at Rs.1,200. Thereafter it was held that he was contributing rs.800 per month to his family members (claimants) who were dependent upon him. Thus, the annual dependency was calculated at Rs.9,600. A multiplier of 16 was applied and the amount of compensation works out to Rs.1,53,600. Rs.5,000 were awarded for cremation and other death rites. Rs.6,000 were allowed as compensation for damage to the car. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation has been assessed at Rs.1,64,600. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that the assessment of the income of Sarabjit Singh made by the learned Tribunal was totally erroneous. The evidence on the record showed that the income of the aforesaid Sarabjit singh from salary itself was proved to be rs.2,000 per month. In fact the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the statement made by PW 1 Kanwal Parkash, widow of Sarabjit Singh. In her statement she has specifically stated that Sarabjit singh was working as a clerk in the Punjab state Co-op. Milk Producers Federation limited and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2,000. The statement of Kanwal parkash Kaur was never challenged by the respondents in the cross-examination. In her statement she has specifically stated that Sarabjit singh was working as a clerk in the Punjab state Co-op. Milk Producers Federation limited and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.2,000. The statement of Kanwal parkash Kaur was never challenged by the respondents in the cross-examination. On that basis, the learned counsel has submitted that in fact the income of the deceased from salary as stated by his widow should be taken to have been admitted. It is further contended that at the time of his death, deceased Sarabjit Singh was maintaining a car and as such it could not be taken that his income was only liable to be assessed at the rate of Rs.40 per day, i. e. , Rs.1,200 per month. The learned counsel further submits that in fact the claim petition has also detailed out that deceased Sarabjit singh was a graduate and besides working as a clerk was also engaged in the business of dairy fanning and cultivation, etc. Thus according to the learned counsel the aforesaid income from other sources have been completely ignored by learned Tribunal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the learned counsel. It is no doubt true that in her statement, the wife of the deceased Sarabjit Singh has specifically stated that the deceased was drawing a monthly carry home salary of rs.1,997.30. The said statement was not challenged in the cross-examination by the respondents. In this view of the matter, the said fact stated by Kanwal Parkash, widow of Sarabjit Singh would be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. It has also come on the record that the aforesaid deceased was maintaining a car and was a graduate. Although I find myself unable to accept the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that deceased was also having any additional income besides the salary from the Co-op. Society, because there is no evidence in this regard led by the claimants, but still keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, income of rs.2,000 from salary as proved by claimants cannot be rejected on any ground. Accordingly, I find that Rs.2,000 was the salary of the deceased Sarabjit Singh from his employer Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producers Federation Limited at the time of his death. The aforesaid deceased was having two children plus a wife and mother to support. Accordingly, I find that Rs.2,000 was the salary of the deceased Sarabjit Singh from his employer Punjab State Co-op. Milk Producers Federation Limited at the time of his death. The aforesaid deceased was having two children plus a wife and mother to support. Accordingly, it can be taken that he was spending 1/4th of the total salary for his personal expenses and contributing the remaining salary towards his family. Thus his dependency can very well be calculated at Rs.1,500 per month. Accordingly his annual dependency comes to Rs.18,000. Applying the multiplier of 16. as applied by the learned Tribunal, the compensation comes to Rs.2,88,000. Since the amount of Rs.5,000 was granted by the learned Tribunal for last rites of the deceased Sarabjit Singh and an amount of Rs.6,000 was assessed as damage to the car, therefore, the total compensation awardable for the death of Sarabjit Singh shall be Rs.2,99,000 (say Rs.3,00,000 ). The aforesaid compensation would be payable to the claimants Kanwal Parkash, harjit Kaur, Indervir Singh and Surjit Kaur. Whereas Surjit Kaur would be entitled to 20 per cent amount of compensation, the remaining 80 per cent would be distributed equally amongst the remaining claimants. Claim of Jasbir Singh, injured: 13. Jasbir Singh claimant was working as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner with the State of Punjab. He was injured in the aforesaid accident. He had suffered the following injuries: (1) Fracture left trochanter of femur; (2) Fracture dislocation of left shoulder joint. Both these injuries were declared as grievous. Dr. Suresh Singla who attended Jasbir singh while appearing as PW 5 stated that jasbir Singh was treated with close reduction for both the injuries. He was admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh on 29.5.1990 and was discharged on 13.7.1990. Dr. Singla deposed that the fracture has since united but the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 75 per cent. One operation of skeletal traction was also performed upon him. The injured Jasbir Singh was stated to be still under treatment. He further deposed that the claimant could not walk without the help of crutches or attendant. PW 14 is Dr. Kamla of the Department of Physiotherapy of PGI, Chandigarh. She deposed that Dr. Awasthi had examined jasbir Singh and it was diagnosed that he suffered from depression as a result of mental shock and due to multiple injuries on his body. PW 14 is Dr. Kamla of the Department of Physiotherapy of PGI, Chandigarh. She deposed that Dr. Awasthi had examined jasbir Singh and it was diagnosed that he suffered from depression as a result of mental shock and due to multiple injuries on his body. She further deposed that the doctor examined Jasbir Singh for head injury on 13.4.1991. Dr. Kamla examined jasbir Singh time to time from 13.4.1991 to 11.3.1992. She prescribed medicines for him which he took from 18.4.1991 to 11.3.1992. The total expenses of medicine was Rs.10 per day. The total expenses of medicine was Rs.3,000 on 11.3.1992, the claimant was still under mental shock to the extent of 30 to 40 per cent. Exh. PX is certificate regarding leave account and the claimant was not paid salary of Rs.29,510 as he remained on special disability leave from 29.5.1990 to 30.11.1990. Jasbir Singh himself has appeared as a witness and stated that he had remained in pgi for three months. Thereafter also he remained bedridden for about three months at his house. He was still under treatment. He even could not tie his turban. Although he is a Sikh, he had to cut his hair short. He has stated that he had spent Rs.80,000 to Rs.90,000 on his treatment which was still continuing. His left arm was permanently impaired. According to the claimant, he had suffered 40 per cent mental disability. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal found that injured jasbir Singh was entitled to Rs.60,000 on account of pain and suffering and mental shock. Rs.1,00,000 were granted as compensation for loss of enjoyment of life, 75 per cent permanent disability and use of crutches, etc. Rs.50,000 were awarded for medicines and other medical treatment, diet and attendants, etc. Rs.29,510 were awarded as compensation for the loss of income due to deduction of leave. Accordingly,a total compensation of Rs.2,39,510 was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, the injuries suffered by the injured Jasbir Singh were such, which had rendered him permanently disabled physically as well as mentally. Jasbir singh was merely 43 years of age and had a very long and promising career ahead. Accordingly,a total compensation of Rs.2,39,510 was awarded. According to the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant, the injuries suffered by the injured Jasbir Singh were such, which had rendered him permanently disabled physically as well as mentally. Jasbir singh was merely 43 years of age and had a very long and promising career ahead. According to the learned counsel since the doctor had himself opined that there was a permanent disability to the extent of 75 per cent, and further since the claimant was even admitted in the PGI for three months and even thereafter had to undergo bed rest for months together and his treatment had continued thereafter also, the compensation awarded for pain and suffering and for loss of enjoyment of life was highly inadequate. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. I have also gone through the evidence produced by claimant on the record. It is not disputed that the claimant was working as Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the fateful day. He was merely 43 years of age at that time. After the injuries suffered by him, the doctor had declared him permanently disabled to the extent of 75 per cent. He has also suffered mental disability which is stated to the extent of 40 per cent. Another important aspect of the matter which could not be lost sight of is that the injured-claimant is Sikh by religion. He has stated that because of his permanent disability and impairment of the left arm, he has not been able to tie his turban. Even though a sikh, he had to cut his long hair short. This aspect of the matter itself has to be kept in mind while awarding compensation for mental shock, agony and loss of enjoyment of life. Under these circumstances, i feel that Jasbir Singh injured is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,50,000 on account of pain and suffering and mental shock suffered by him. Rs.2,00,000 would be the adequate compensation for the loss of enjoyment of life and for permanent disability of 75 per cent suffered by him and for use of crutches, etc. Compensation of rs.50,000 for the medicines and medical treatment suffered by the injured is upheld. Rs.29,510 have rightly been awarded to him for the reduction of his leave. Rs.2,00,000 would be the adequate compensation for the loss of enjoyment of life and for permanent disability of 75 per cent suffered by him and for use of crutches, etc. Compensation of rs.50,000 for the medicines and medical treatment suffered by the injured is upheld. Rs.29,510 have rightly been awarded to him for the reduction of his leave. Accordingly total compensation now payable to claimant Jasbir Singh shall be Rs.4,29,510 and accordingly, the claimant Jasbir Singh would be entitled to total compensation of rs.4,29,510. Claim of injured Kewal Mehra: 14. Kewal Mehra, the claimant, was 56 years of age at the time of said accident. He was serving as Taxation Inspector, mohali in the Excise and Taxation Department of State of Punjab. Because of the injuries caused in the accident his right leg was fractured. He appeared as PW 3. He remained confined to bed for six months. He visited PGI, Chandigarh many times. He claims that he had spent Rs.60,000 to rs.70,000 for his treatment, fee of the doctors, special diets and wages for the attendant. He further claimed that his duty as Inspector was in the field but he could not do the same duty now. He further stated that his right leg has shortened. PW 5, Dr. Suresh Singla, proved the injuries of Kewal Mehra. He has stated that the injured had suffered fracture of both bones of left lower limb. For this injury close reduction was done and POP cast was applied. The said injury was grievous. He was discharged on 31.5.1990. Dr. Suresh Singla further deposed that the fracture had united and the permanent disability to the injured-claimant was to the extent of 16 per cent. PW 7 proved that Kewal Mehra, claimant, was getting a salary of Rs.3,516 per month. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000 for pain and suffering and mental shock. An amount of Rs.50,000 was awarded for the loss of enjoyment of life and 16 per cent permanent disability suffered by the claimant. Rs.20,000 were awarded as compensation for medical expenses, diet, attendance, etc. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs.90,000 was awarded to the claimant Kewal Mehra. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the aforesaid compensation-awarded to the claimant for the pain and suffering suffered by him and for loss of enjoyment of life was highly inadequate. Rs.20,000 were awarded as compensation for medical expenses, diet, attendance, etc. Accordingly, the total compensation of Rs.90,000 was awarded to the claimant Kewal Mehra. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the aforesaid compensation-awarded to the claimant for the pain and suffering suffered by him and for loss of enjoyment of life was highly inadequate. According to the learned counsel, since the claimant was already 56 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, it was apparent that he was going to be in more agony in the later years of his life. It is further submitted that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 16 per cent. Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant and also taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties and also keeping in view the permanent disability of the claimant, I find that some enhancement needs to be made in the compensation granted to claimant kewal Mehra by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, I find that Rs.25,000 would be the adequate compensation for the pain and suffering and mental shock suffered by the injured. The compensation of loss of enjoyment of life and 16 per cent permanent disability is assessed at Rs.80,000. The compensation for the medical treatment, etc. , has rightly been assessed at rs.20,000 by the learned Tribunal. In this manner, the claimant Kewal Mehra would be entitled to get Rs.1,25,000 as compensation for the injuries suffered by him. Claim of injured Jaswinderjit Kaur: 15. Jaswinderjit Kaur was 28 years of age at the time of accident. She was working as Excise and Taxation Officer in State of Punjab on the fateful day. Jaswinderjit kaur appeared as PW 2. She stated that she had lost her memory and was unable to move. She further stated that in the end of July, 1990 she came to know about the injury on her right leg. She was operated upon. She received treatment for dislocation of right hip joint with sciatic nerve involvement. Her sciatic nerve was damaged because of foot drop. Physiotherapy was still going on when she deposed. She further deposed that she cannot walk without sticks. She also deposed that she felt pain even if she had to prepare tea, while standing for some time. She also took treatment from USA. Her sciatic nerve was damaged because of foot drop. Physiotherapy was still going on when she deposed. She further deposed that she cannot walk without sticks. She also deposed that she felt pain even if she had to prepare tea, while standing for some time. She also took treatment from USA. Her husband maintained the account and he knew the entire expenses. She further deposed that she had to engage a full-time attendant at the rate of rs.1,000 per month including meals. She further deposed that she could not drive a vehicle and had to spend Rs.1,000 per month for engaging the driver for going to pgi and her office. She further deposed that she could not lead a normal life and look after her children. PW 5, Dr. Suresh Singla, Registrar, department of Orthopaedics, PGI proved that Jaswinderjit Kaur was brought to the pgi in an injured condition and she had following orthopaedic injuries: fracture dislocation of right hip joint with sciatic nerve involvement. The injury was found to be grievous. She was treated by close reduction and skeletal traction. She was discharged on 2.6.1991. Although her fracture healed with some mal-position and sciatic nerve was recovered partially. The doctor opined that she had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50 per cent. Dr. Singla deposed that she would require sticks for walking. She would have pain in hip joint while walking for prolonged time or prolonged sitting. PW 9, Dr. Chander Shekhar Garg has deposed that he treated Jaswinderjit Kaur, claimant. He also deposed that after operation her limb could not be fully cured. He further deposed that he visited 100 times to her house and charged Rs.10,000 from her. The physiotherapist also paid her 300 visits. Dr. M. S. Dhuria is husband of injured jaswinderjit Kaur, who had appeared as pw 4. Dr. Dhuria deposed that he spent about Rs.80,000 on her treatment in the pgi. He also deposed that he also took her to America for treatment. He produced air tickets, Exh. A-l to Exh. A-4. He further deposed that he had engaged an attendant and a driver for the claimant. PW 6 is Dr. M. K. Tiwari, Assistant professor, Department of Neurosurgery, pgi has appeared as PW 6. He has also deposed about the condition of the injured jaswinderjit Kaur. It was opined that she had massive extradural haematoma underlying. A-l to Exh. A-4. He further deposed that he had engaged an attendant and a driver for the claimant. PW 6 is Dr. M. K. Tiwari, Assistant professor, Department of Neurosurgery, pgi has appeared as PW 6. He has also deposed about the condition of the injured jaswinderjit Kaur. It was opined that she had massive extradural haematoma underlying. She had altered sensorium right pupil which was large as compared to left. She had blood clot and was operated upon and it was dangerous injury. He further deposed that Jaswinderjit Kaur claimant could not smell from both her nostrils and she had blurring of the right eye. She had craniectomy defect in the right tempo-parietal region. He assessed her permanent disability as 25 per cent due to blurring of vision of right eye and loss of smelling power. The orthopaedician assessed her permanent disability as 50 per cent. With the clubbing of these disabilities, the total would come to 62.5 per cent as per formula evolved in National Seminar of disability evaluation and dissemination. It was further opined that the effect of that injury was that she would not remember anything about the accident which is known as post-traumatic amnesia. The future effect of this injury was that she may forget things of small significance. This infirmity might last till her death. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Tribunal assessed Rs.40,000 for pain and suffering and mental shock suffered by the injured Jaswinderjit Kaur. Rs.25,000 for the loss of enjoyment of life, 62.5 per cent permanent disability, blurring of vision, loss of smelling power, etc. Rs.50,000 was awarded for medical treatment, special diet, attendants, etc. Thus, total compensation awarded to her was Rs.1,15,000. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the evidence on the record apparently shows that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal was highly inadequate. The claimant was a young lady of 28 years and has suffered 62.5 per cent permanent disability and further that her future life has been rendered quite difficult. She has suffered physical disability as well as mental disability. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the evidence on record and the submission made by learned counsel and keeping in view the evidence of medical experts and the permanent disability, I find that compensation in the case of injured jaswinderjit Kaur needs to be enhanced. She has suffered physical disability as well as mental disability. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the evidence on record and the submission made by learned counsel and keeping in view the evidence of medical experts and the permanent disability, I find that compensation in the case of injured jaswinderjit Kaur needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, she would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for pain and suffering and mental shock. Rs.2,00,000 would be an adequate compensation to the injured for the loss of enjoyment of life, 62.5 per cent permanent disability, blurring of vision, loss of smelling power, etc. Rs.50,000 granted by the learned Tribunal for medical treatment, diet, attendants, etc. are maintained. Accordingly, the claimant jaswinderjit Kaur would now be entitled to compensation of Rs, 3,50,000. Claim of injured Sushma Kumari: 16. Sushma Kumari, injured-claimant, was working as Excise and Taxation Officer at the time of accident. She was 25 years of age at that time and was unmarried. She has appeared as PW 11 and has deposed that she was admitted in the PGI for a week and thereafter she remained bedridden for four months. She claimed that flesh was removed from her skull and she was operated upon. The nerves of right side of her head were cut and damaged. She claimed that she did not feel sensation on the right side of her head. There was permanent scar on her forehead from the back of her head and then to her right temporal region. At the time of accident her salary was Rs.3,500 per month. The scar had spoiled her facial beauty. She claimed that she consulted cosmetic surgeons but the scar could not be removed. She further stated that she had lost her eyesight and the power of hearing. She feels pain in her forehead and on the back of her neck. She further deposed that she could not sit for long to do any table work which had lowered her official efficiency and had affected her promotional avenues. She further claimed that she was still unmarried and her chances for marriage had been impaired. She had to engage a lady servant and paid Rs.600 per month to her. PW 13 dr. Sasanka Saha, General Surgery Ward of the PGI brought the relevant record and deposed that Sushma Kumari claimant had scalp laceration of 12 cm. in the right side and 7 cm. She had to engage a lady servant and paid Rs.600 per month to her. PW 13 dr. Sasanka Saha, General Surgery Ward of the PGI brought the relevant record and deposed that Sushma Kumari claimant had scalp laceration of 12 cm. in the right side and 7 cm. in the left side. There was a skin loss and the scalp was avulsed. He further deposed that the wound was profusely bleeding. He stitched it. Fluid was transfused intravenously to her. Dr. Saha has further deposed that laceration injury in skull and forehead left a permanent scar. PW 12, Dr. Gurdev Singh of the Department of Orthopaedic deposed that Sushma kumari claimant had soft tissue injuries on neck and knee regions and that she was advised bed rest for 9 weeks. She had been treated as outdoor patient in the Department of Orthopaedics. Dr. Gurdev Singh has further deposed that he had prescribed cervical collar to the injured for the neck injury. PW 17 Dr. M. K. Tewari deposed that he treated Sushma Kumari, claimant. She complained of heaviness of head, anaesthesia and scalp giddiness, pain over vertex and both shoulders. She was referred to ent specialist, for otological test, clinical psychologist, eye specialist, plastic surgeon. It was further deposed that Sushma kumari petitioner had suffered permanent disability of 50 per cent and she was complaining of giddiness, pain over vertex, pain over neck reacting to both shoulders. He further deposed that the scar on her forehead is permanent and cannot be removed even by plastic surgery. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid evidence awarded an amount of Rs.60,000 for mental shock, pain and suffering. Rs.80,000 were awarded for the loss of enjoyment of life, 50 per cent permanent disability, disfigurement of face and scalp, dim prospects of marriage, etc. and Rs.40,000 were awarded for medicines, treatment, diet, attendance, transportation, etc. Accordingly, an amount of rs.1,80,000 was awarded to the claimant-injured Sushma Kumari. 17. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the compensation to injured Sushma Kumari was highlyinadequate since she has also suffered 50 per cent permanent disability and was an unmarried young lady of 25 years at the time of accident. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the evidence on record. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the evidence on record. In my considered view, keeping in view the facts and circumstances the compensation awarded to the claimant Sushma Kumari also needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, I feel that an amount of Rs.1,50,000 would be adequate compensation for the mental shock, pain and suffering. Since claimant was a young, unmarried lady, therefore, the facial scar and other injuries to her have also affected her future life and the prospects of her marriage. She needs to be adequately compensated on that account. Therefore, the compensation for the loss of enjoyment of life, 50 per cent permanent disability, disfigurement of face and scalp, dim prospects of marriage, etc. , is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000. The compensation of Rs.40,000 granted by the learned tribunal for medical treatment and medicines is adequate. Accordingly, the total compensation awarded to Sushma Kumari claimant comes to Rs.3,90,000. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals are allowed. The award of the learned Tribunal is modified. The appellants-claimants would be entitled to the compensation assessed by this court, respectively, as noticed above, along with 12 per cent interest from the date of the filing of the petitions till the date of realisation. Appellants would also be entitled to the costs which are assessed at Rs.5,000 in each case. Appeals allowed.