RAM MOHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) MISCELLANEOUS first Appeal Nos. 1117 and 228 of 2002 are filed under section 173 (1) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the act') calling in question the judgment and award dated 12. 10. 2001 and hence, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) M. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002 is filed by the Management of Andhra Pradesh State road Transport Corporation, calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment dated 12. 10. 2001 filed in M. V. C. No. 309 of 1999 on the file of the Addl. District judge (M. A. C. T.), Raichur (for short 'the M. A. C. T. '), while M. F. A. No. 228 of 2002 is filed by injured-claimant, seeking more compensation. ( 3 ) COMMON facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these appeals are: on 23. 4. 1999 at about 11. 45 p. m. while the claimant was returning to Vidyanagar after completion of his private business at a super market in Gulbarga riding his Hero honda motor cycle bearing registration no. KA 32-H 7966 and when he reached k. S. R. T. C. guest house, the motor vehicle being a bus belonging to the appellant in m. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002 driven at a high speed and in a zigzag manner from Thimmapur circle side, dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, due to which impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to the Government Hospital, Gulbarga. On advise, he was taken to basaveshwara Hospital for treatment and thereafter, to a private hospital at Sholapur. The injured-claimant asserts to be 24 years of age, a student of final year dental service course and employed under one Dr. Keshav Biradar, working in his clinic and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 3,000. The injured-claimant claimed compensation of rs. 14,70,000 by filing a claim petition under section 166 of the Act which petition was numbered as M. V. C. No. 308 of 1999. The A. P. S. R. T. C. arraigned as respondent no. 2 in the said claim petition, on notice, entered appearance filed its statement of objections and resisted the claim. The respondent No. 1, the driver of the bus though represented by a counsel did not file his statement of objections. The A. P. S. R. T. C. arraigned as respondent no. 2 in the said claim petition, on notice, entered appearance filed its statement of objections and resisted the claim. The respondent No. 1, the driver of the bus though represented by a counsel did not file his statement of objections. ( 4 ) IN the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the M. A. C. T. framed the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 23. 4. 1999 at about 11. 45 p. m. in front of K. S. R. T. C. Guest House, Gulbarga, while he was riding in his motor cycle KA 32-H 7966, an A. P. S. R. T. Cbus bearing No. AP 10-Z 4892 came there driven by its driver, respondent no. 1, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him and caused the alleged accident? (2) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in the alleged accident? (3) Whether respondent No. 2 proves that the accident in question was due to negligent act of the petitioner himself as is contended in its written statement? (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, to what extent? (5) What order or award? ( 5 ) THE M. A. C. T. recorded the depositions of the claimant as PW 1 and of two other witnesses, viz. , Dr. Keshav Biradar as PW 2 and Dr. Kothadia Pradip as PW 3 and marked 398 documents as Exhs. P-l to P-398. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent No. 1, driver was examined as rw 1 and did not mark any documents in evidence. The M. A. C. T. on appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary laid before it by the parties, answered issue nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and issue no. 3 in the negative, while awarding a total compensation of Rs. 5,19,000 under different heads, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimant-injured, not being satisfied with the award of compensation, has preferred M. F. A. No. 228 of 2002, while the A. P. S. R. T. C. the owner of the bus being aggrieved of the judgment and award has preferred M. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002. The claimant-injured, not being satisfied with the award of compensation, has preferred M. F. A. No. 228 of 2002, while the A. P. S. R. T. C. the owner of the bus being aggrieved of the judgment and award has preferred M. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant in M. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002 would contend that M. A. C. T. had found the driver responsible for the accident without properly appreciating the evidence of RW 1 and the said finding is vitiated on account of perversity. He would also contend that the M. A. C. T. ought not to have taken the monthly income of the claimant-injured at rs. 800, particularly in the absence of proof of employment under PW 2. In addition, he would contend that the M. A. C. T. ought to have rejected the assessment of disability at 65 per cent by PW 3 as it was not on a scientific basis. Lastly, he would contend that the award of Rs. 5,19,000 under various heads is highly excessive. ( 7 ) IN opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant who is also the counsel appearing for the appellant in m. F. A. No. 228 of 2002 sought to sustain the finding of the M. A. C. T. attributing actionable negligence on the driver of the bus involved in the accident. He would contend that the award of compensation is on the lower side and not commensurate with the gravity of injuries sustained, the disability suffered and the treatment taken. In addition, he would contend that the m. A. C. T. was not justified in taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 800 and in not awarding compensation towards attendant charges and special food and nutrition and loss of future earnings. Lastly, he would contend that the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent is not in conformity with the trends reflected in the judicial pronouncements of this court. 800 and in not awarding compensation towards attendant charges and special food and nutrition and loss of future earnings. Lastly, he would contend that the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent is not in conformity with the trends reflected in the judicial pronouncements of this court. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award as also the original records maintained by the M. A. C. T. , the following two questions arise for determination in these appeals: (1) Whether the M. A. C. T. was justified in attributing actionable negligence on the driver of the bus bearing registration no. AP 10-Z 4892 belonging to the appellant in M. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002 in causing the accident and injuries to the claimant? (2) Whether the award of compensation of Rs. 5,19,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum under several heads is excessive, as contended by the appellant in M. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002 or is inadequate as contended by the claimant-injured in M. F. A. No. 228 of 2002, in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence of record? If it is inadequate, what shall be the just and reasonable compensation that claimantinjured is entitled to? point No. 1: ( 9 ) THE fact that the accident occurred involving two motor vehicles resulting in bodily injuries to the rider of the motor cycle, is not in dispute. The dispute is whether it was the driver of the bus, who was rash and negligent or the rider of the motor cycle? The injured-claimant has examined himself as PW 1 and reiterated the averments of the claim petition while producing the police records such as the f. I. R. at Exh. P-l; complaint at Exh. P-2; spot panchnama at Exh. P-3 and M. V. I, report at Exh. P-4. It is in his evidence that it was the bus driven from Thimmapura circle in a zigzag, manner dashed against the motor cycle on which the PW 1 was the rider. He further testifies that the bus came on to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle of claimant. P-4. It is in his evidence that it was the bus driven from Thimmapura circle in a zigzag, manner dashed against the motor cycle on which the PW 1 was the rider. He further testifies that the bus came on to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle of claimant. In the cross-examination of this witness it is suggested that the claimant was under intoxication of alcohol, which suggestion, met with a denial from the witness. Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his evidence. As against this evidence, we have the evidence of RW 1, the driver of the bus who deposed that it was the claimant-injured who while riding the motor cycle in a zigzag manner dashed against the right side of the bus causing the accident despite signalling to the claimant by use of the dipper of the head lights of the bus. ( 10 ) THE M. A. C. T. on an assessment of the oral evidence of PW 1 and RW 1 and having noticed that there was nothing elicited in the cross-examination of PW 1 to disbelieve his evidence, coupled with the fact that the testimony of the claimant stood corroborated by the police records, which probablised the negligence of the driver of the bus, rightly rejected the evidence of RW 1. Eschewing the oral evidence of PW 1 and RW 1 as self-interested testimony, the police records such as the f. I. R. and panchnama would establish that the bus had in fact come on to the wrong side of the road and due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, the accident had occurred, resulting in injuries to the claimant. One another reason to arrive at this conclusion is that, the records disclose the appellant Corporation to have filed a memo on 25. 4. 2000 enclosing two documents, first of which is the report of an officer of the appellant Corporation and the other is a spot sketch which describes that the bus had traversed on to the wrong side of the road at the spot of accident, while in the process of overtaking stationary autorickshaw. The defence set up by the respondent that the claimant was in an inebriated condition at the time of the accident, was neither proved nor corroborated by testimony of any independent, uninterested witness. The defence set up by the respondent that the claimant was in an inebriated condition at the time of the accident, was neither proved nor corroborated by testimony of any independent, uninterested witness. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the m. A. C. T. attributing actionable negligence on the driver of the bus is well merited, justified, does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmities warranting interference by this court. Point No. 2: ( 11 ) BEFORE proceeding to answer the said question, it is necessary to bear in mind the principles and norms governing the determination of compensation in bodily injury cases. In the context of the facts of this case, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment in the case of K. Jagannath Rai v. Gangarathna C. Bai, 2004 ACJ 982 (Karnataka), in which S. R. Nayak, J. one of us, speaking to another co-ordinate Division Bench observed thus:" (18) In deciding the quantum of damages to be paid to a person for the personal injury suffered by him, the court is bound to ascertain all considerations which will make good to the sufferer of the injuries, as far as money can do, the loss which he has suffered as a natural consequence of the wrong done to him. In Basavaraj v. Shekhar, 1987 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka), a Division Bench of this court held that 'if the original position cannot be restored as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so make good the damage'. In other words, the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. The principle is sometimes referred to as restitutio in integrum; but it is manifest and universally realised that no award of money can possibly compensate a man and renew a shattered human frame. Lord Morris of Borth-y- gest in Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), said: 'to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but. . . Lord Morris of Borth-y- gest in Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), said: 'to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but. . . no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment. . . ' (21) It is well settled position in law that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. In personal injury actions the two main elements are the personal loss and the pecuniary loss. Chief Justice Cockburn in Fair v. London and North Western railway Company, 1869 (21) LT 326, distinguished the above two aspects thus: 'in assessing the compensation the jury should take into account two things, first, the pecuniary loss (the plaintiff) sustains by the accident; secondly, the injury he sustains in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life. When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss they have to take into account not only his present loss, but his incapacity to earn a future improved income. ' (22) Mcgregor on Damages, 14th Edn. , para 1157, referring to the heads of damages in personal injury actions states: 'the person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz. , the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have subdivided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz. , pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life. ' (23) Besides, the court is well advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure'. , pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life. ' (23) Besides, the court is well advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure'. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to 'hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing', is quite apposite to be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. "in the said case, while dealing with claims for damages for personal injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident resulting in debilitating and incapacitating the injured, this court had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 59,190 to Rs. 2,85,000 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. ( 12 ) KEEPING in mind the aforesaid principles, we proceed to apply the same to the facts of this case and to examine the compensation awarded by the M. A. C. T. under various heads. ( 13 ) THE claimant, on 23. 4. 1999, the date of the accident was aged 24 years, a final year student in Dental Sciences is not in dispute. He claims to have been employed by a dentist, by name Dr. Keshav biradar examined as PW 2, on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000. On account of the accident, the claimant sustained the following injuries described in the wound certificate, exh. P-6: (1) CLW of 7. 5 cm. x 2. 5 cm. anterior to the TRI gus of right ear. (2) Compound fracture right femur with crush injury over the medical aspect of right thigh just above right knee joint, bone exposed from the wounds. (3) Compound fracture right tibia and crush injury 4 x 5 cm. just 7 cm. above the right ankle joint. ( 14 ) THE claimant, at first, was treated at government Hospital, Gulbarga and later shifted to Basaveswara Teaching and General Hospital, Gulbarga, where he was an inpatient from 24. 4. 1999 to 29. 4. 1999. While as an inpatient, he was operated upon for the fractures at SI. Nos. just 7 cm. above the right ankle joint. ( 14 ) THE claimant, at first, was treated at government Hospital, Gulbarga and later shifted to Basaveswara Teaching and General Hospital, Gulbarga, where he was an inpatient from 24. 4. 1999 to 29. 4. 1999. While as an inpatient, he was operated upon for the fractures at SI. Nos. 2 and 3 referred to in Exh. P-6. It is evident from the discharge summary at Exh. P-217, on advice, he was shifted to a private hospital of Dr. Kothadia Pradip at Sholapur, where he was an inpatient, as certified by the document at Exh. P-388. The claimant was operated upon on three occasions, firstly for the external fixation, secondly, for insertion of ilizarov rings and thirdly, for replacement of iron rods, i. e. , implants, during the period of hospitalization of 114 days in four spells from 29. 4. 1999 to 25. 6. 1999; 20. 7. 1999 to 22. 7. 99; 19. 8. 1999 to 8. 9. 1999 and 17. 11. 1999 to 13. 12. 1999. These facts are evident from the bills at exhs. P-352 to P-355. Due to the infection at the site of the surgery, the injured underwent one more surgery for reduction of bone by 2". The claimant, in his testimony, has stated that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he had to undergo two more surgeries, despite which the injuries were not cured and that he suffers from recurrent pain and disability in mobility. The injured further testifies that the dressing for the injuries was done at Gulbarga whenever he was discharged from the hospital at Sholapur. In addition he had deposed that he is unable to sit, stand and walk properly without the assistance of an attendant and that he is suffering from shortening of the leg by 2 inches. ( 15 ) IN order to prove the injuries sustained and the medical treatment taken, the claimant examined one Dr. Kothadia pradip, an orthopaedic surgeon, at Sholapur, as PW 3. This witness testified to the aforesaid facts of surgeries, treatment and hospitalization, as well as the medical bills at Exhs. P-45 to P-355. He has also deposed that claimant suffered from shortening of the right lower limb to an extent of 3'/2" and that there is stiffening of the right hand and ankle and disfigurement of the limb. This witness testified to the aforesaid facts of surgeries, treatment and hospitalization, as well as the medical bills at Exhs. P-45 to P-355. He has also deposed that claimant suffered from shortening of the right lower limb to an extent of 3'/2" and that there is stiffening of the right hand and ankle and disfigurement of the limb. In his opinion, he has assessed the permanent disability at 60 per cent to the right leg, though in the certificate at exh. P-388, he had indicated that the disability was 65 per cent. This witness has spoken to the X-ray films which are 33 in numbers at Exh. P-391 and confirms that they relate to the X-rays of the injured leg of the claimant. He further testifies that the injuries are not completely cured and that the claimant would have to undergo 2 or 3 more major surgeries at a total cost of rs. 1,50,000 which would include the cost of surgery, hospital expenses, medicines and the follow-up treatment. This witness identifies the four photographs showing the condition of the right leg of the claimant which are marked as Exh. P-392. The respondents were unable to elicit any contradictions in the cross-examination of this witness so as to discard his testimony and disbelieve his assessment of the permanent disability. ( 16 ) THE injured examined his employer dr. Keshav Biradar as PW 2. This witness claims to be a lecturer in HKESSN Dental college, Gulbarga and also carries on private practice in his clinic at Gulbarga. He testifies to the fact that he had engaged the injured since 1992 on a monthly salary of rs. 500. According to PW 2, at the time of accident, the claimant was paid Rs. 3,000 p. m. He admits to have issued the salary certificate as at Exh. P-389. Apart from the oral testimony of PW 2, no documentary evidence is produced to substantiate the fact that the claimant was paid Rs. 3,000 as monthly wage on the date of accident. ( 17 ) M. A. C. T. having assessed the evidence on record, compensated the claimant by an award of Rs. 60,000 towards pain and suffering which in the facts, circumstances of the case and the evidence and in our considered opinion, is just and reasonable. The medical bills produced by the claimant totals to Rs. 3,69,007. ( 17 ) M. A. C. T. having assessed the evidence on record, compensated the claimant by an award of Rs. 60,000 towards pain and suffering which in the facts, circumstances of the case and the evidence and in our considered opinion, is just and reasonable. The medical bills produced by the claimant totals to Rs. 3,69,007. 36 which the M. A. C. T. thought fit and just to round off the amount to Rs. 3,69,000 while awarding the said sum for medical expenses. We also think that the said award is justified. Though the claimant sought to substantiate the claim of transportation expenses by producing bills at Exhs. P-316 to P-387 totalling to Rs. 41,978. 10 (each bill for Rs. 1,522. 50), for having travelled by hiring a motor vehicle from Gulbarga to sholapur covering a distance of 345 km. at the rate of Rs. 4. 50 per km. , the M. A. C. T. did not find favour with this evidence of pw 1, on the ground, that the bills did not appear to be genuine. The M. A. C. T. found discrepancies in these bills and the oral testimony of claimant and in its assessment and rightly so, in our opinion, awarded rs. 25,000 towards transportation charges. ( 18 ) IT is an established fact that the claimant was an inpatient in the hospital at Gulbarga for a period of five days and thereafter at Sholapur for 114 days in four spells. Though the M. A. C. T. observed that the claimant was an inpatient, curiously enough, it did not award compensation towards attendant charges and special food and nutrition. The nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, immobilized him, which required an attendant to assist him while as an inpatient in the hospital. PW 1 in his testimony has stated that his parents and brother had attended on him. It would not be fair if the claimant is not compensated towards attendant charges. Taking rs. 100 per day towards attendant charges for a period of six months, i. e. , April, 1999 to December, 1999 ends of justice would be met by an award of Rs. 18,000. In order to recuperate from the grievous nature of injuries sustained, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 10,000 towards special food and nutrition, which is just and reasonable. ( 19 ) THE evidence of PW 2, Dr. 18,000. In order to recuperate from the grievous nature of injuries sustained, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 10,000 towards special food and nutrition, which is just and reasonable. ( 19 ) THE evidence of PW 2, Dr. Keshav biradar is scanty and is not entirely reliable. However, the M. A. C. T. was not justified in taking the income of the injured at rs. 800 p. m. and awarding Rs. 10,000 for loss of income. Taking the notional income of Rs. 1,250 p. m. , the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000 for a period of one year under the head 'loss of earnings during treatment'. ( 20 ) LEARNED M. A. C. T. , having noticed that the injured had suffered a permanent disability of 60 per cent and the opinion of PW 3 that the claimant can do some work only, as a dentist, ought to have compensated the claimant towards loss of future earnings. The monthly income of the claimant, as a dentist, after completion of his studies and in the event he carries on the profession as a dentist he would earn a sum not less than Rs. 1,250 p. m. , but the permanent disability has affected the future prospects of the claimant to earn more income from out of his profession. It is well established that the injured was aged 24 years on the date of accident. Taking the notional income of Rs. 15,000 p. a. and applying multiple 17' appropriate to age 24, and taking the disability at 60 per cent, future loss of income will be Rs. 1,53,000 which in our considered opinion would meet the ends of justice. ( 21 ) THE award of sum of Rs. 60,000 by m. A. C. T. towards future loss of amenities is meagre and needs to be enhanced. The claimant, aged 24 years, at the threshold of commencing his profession as a dentist, is disabled due to the grievous nature of injuries to the right limb. The disability suffered by the claimant is deprivation and diminution in full pleasures of living, thus entitled to damages. Having regard to the gravity as also the degree of awareness of deprivation the amount of Rs. 60,000 awarded by M. A. C. T. appears to be merely token damages. The disability suffered by the claimant is deprivation and diminution in full pleasures of living, thus entitled to damages. Having regard to the gravity as also the degree of awareness of deprivation the amount of Rs. 60,000 awarded by M. A. C. T. appears to be merely token damages. It is trite that compensation is to be assessed by some guesswork, hypothetical considerations and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused which is required to be observed with objective standards. The damaged frame of the body cannot be restored to its original position. The claimant, at a very young age suffered the grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability which he will have to bear for the rest of his life, due to which the claimant would be subjected to frustration, disappointment, discomfort and inconvenience, which undeniably needs to be compensated adequately. In addition, the claimant's loss of marriage prospects also needs to be compensated. In our endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, we are of the considered view that by an award of Rs. 95,000 for disability, loss of expectation of life, loss of marriage prospects and amenities of life, would meet the ends of justice. ( 22 ) FOLLOWING the rulings of this court in the case of Sanjeevini Ananda Awate v. Managing Director, Hiranyakeshi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane, 2002 ACJ 1814 (Karnataka), we direct that the compensation awarded hereinabove to carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. ( 23 ) IN the result and for the reasons mentioned supra, M. F. A. No. 228 of 2002 is allowed in part with costs and M. F. A. No. 1117 of 2002 of the A. P. S. R. T. C. is dismissed without any order as to costs and in substitution of the impugned judgment and award, the claimant is entitled to a total sum of Rs. 7,45,000 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment, under the following heads: ( 24 ) THE respondent A. P. S. R. T. C. in m. F. A. No. 228 of 2002 is directed to deposit the compensation money minus the amount already deposited/paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit being made, the claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the same. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500. Orders accordingly. --- *** --- .