Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant-appellant against the award dated 04.05.1996 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in Claim Case No. 100/1991 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts relevant for determination of the questions involved in this appeal are that are claimant-appellant filed a Claim Petition on. 04.09.1991 seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. Narrating the facts about the occurrence, claimant-appellant alleged that he was driving a bus bearing registration No. RNZ 2151 on 08.04.1991 from Udaipur to Ahmedabad and at about 10:00 AM when the bus reached near Bokhala village, a truck bearing registration No. HNQ 9755 driven rashly and negligently came on the wrong side from opposite direction and collided with the bus resulting in damage to the driver side wheel and cabin of the bus and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and some of the occupants of the bus also received injuries. Regarding the nature of injuries, the claimant averred that he sustained crush injuries on the right leg and his metatarsal and tarsal bones were fractured and dislocated, apart from other injuries on the head and other parts of body. 3. The claimant averred that on account of grievous injuries, his right leg was required to be amputated in order to save his life; that he was treated firstly at the Primary Health Centre, Kherwara, then was taken to Udaipur, and then to Ahmedabad and was still under treatment; that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, his right leg has been amputated and now he cannot drive a vehicle; that he was regularly under pain and was unable to move himself and apart from the leg, other parts of body also continue to ache. 4. For quantification of compensation, the appellant claimed Rs. 25,000/-for pains and suffering; Rs. 25,000/-for loss of future income; Rs. 5,000/-towards special diets and treatment expenditure; Rs. 7,200/-towards loss of income for six months; and Rs. 2,40,000/-towards permanent disablement. The claim was made against the Non-applicant No. 1, Avtar Singh, being the driver of offending truck, Non-applicants No. 2 and 3, Jogendra Singh and Hoshiyar Singh as its owners and the Non-applicant No. 4, National Insurance Company as the insurer. 5. 7,200/-towards loss of income for six months; and Rs. 2,40,000/-towards permanent disablement. The claim was made against the Non-applicant No. 1, Avtar Singh, being the driver of offending truck, Non-applicants No. 2 and 3, Jogendra Singh and Hoshiyar Singh as its owners and the Non-applicant No. 4, National Insurance Company as the insurer. 5. Reply to the claim application was submitted only by the Non-applicant No. 4 insurer who, while stating a general denial, admitted the averments about names of the owners of the truck and itself being the insurer. However, an objection was raised that at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was not being driven by a person holding valid driving licence. The quantum of compensation claimed by the appellant was also disputed and, inter alia, it was alleged that the bus driver i.e., the applicant was driving the bus rashly and negligently and in violation of the traffic rules and, therefore, could not keep the bus in control and it collided with the insured truck which was fully loaded and was being driven on its side with all care and caution. It was also averred that the owner and insurer of the bus RNZ 2151 were necessary parties to the claim application. 6. On the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues.- ^^1& vk;k izuxr okgu la[;k ,p-,u-D;w- 9755 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k ,d ds }kjk fnukad k & jruijq 08-04-1991 dks izkr% 10 cts dks chNhokM+jk ekxZ ij cks[kyk xkao ds ikl mä okgu dh mis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pykdj dh xbZ nq?kZVuk esa izkFkhZ ds pksVsa vkbZ\ 2& vk;k mä okgu pkyd rc mä okgu Lokeh foi{kh la[;k 2 o 3 ds fu;ksa gksdj mlh ds tu esfgrkFkZ ,oa ykHkkFkZ dk;Z dj jgk Fkk\ 3& vk;k foi{kh la[;k 4 chek dEiuh }kjk fyf [kr dFku dh izkjfEHkd vkifÙk;kas ,oa foks"k dFku ds eísutj chek dEiuh vius nkf ;Ro ls eqä gks ldrh gS ugha rks bldk izHkko\ 4& vk;k nkosnkj vius nkos esa vafdr izuxr jkf k ;k vU; dksbZ U;k; lEer jkf k ik ldrs gSaA gka] rks dkSu dkSu nkosnkj fdruh jkf”k] fdl fdl foi{kh ls ,oa fdl izdkj ls ik ldrs gSa\ 5& vk;k cl vkj-,u- tSM 2151 dk Lokeh o chek da- vko;d i{kdkj eqdnek gS\ 7. The claimant-appellant examined himself as AW.1 and produced a witness Ramesh, AW. The claimant-appellant examined himself as AW.1 and produced a witness Ramesh, AW. 2, the alleged second driver on the bus with the appellant. The Non-applicant No. 4 although did not lead any oral evidence, but produced on record a certified copy of the award dated 17.05.1993 (Exhibit D/1) made by the same Tribunal in Claim Case No. 82/1991, Dinesh Kumar vs. Avtar Singh & Ors., arising from the same accident, in which both the truck driver and the bus driver (appellant) were found equally negligent for causing the accident. The claimant produced relevant documentary evidence in proof of the facts regarding the accident, his treatment expenditure, his disablement and his income. 8. After dealing with the evidence on record, learned Judge of the Tribunal found that the accident occurred right in the middle of the road and from the documentary evidence produced by the claimant himself , it was established that the accident was caused because of the negligence and rashness of both the drivers. The learned Judge also referred to the findings in award Exhibit D/1 in which the present claimant, Laduram was also a party being driver of the bus. In the said award dated 17.05.1993, same finding of negligence of both the drivers was recorded and the appellant was held bound by those findings. Therefore, on Issue No. 1 it was concluded that the accident in which the applicant sustained injuries was a result of rash and negligent driving by both the drivers Avtar Singh and the applicant Laduram. On Issue No. 2, it was found that the truck in question being of the ownership of the Non-applicants No. 2 and 3 was a fact, which was not in dispute and from the charge-sheet Exhibit-2, it was also established that its driver was the Non-applicant No. 1, therefore, Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the claimant. No evidence was produced by the insurer in relation to Issue No. 3, therefore, the said issue was decided against the insurer. Regarding Issue No. 5, the learned Judge observed that in the present case, a decree only for the half of the amount is being passed, therefore, it makes no difference if the bus owner and insurer were not the parties. 9. Regarding Issue No. 5, the learned Judge observed that in the present case, a decree only for the half of the amount is being passed, therefore, it makes no difference if the bus owner and insurer were not the parties. 9. While taking up quantification of compensation, the learned Judge, referred to the bills produced on record and all of them Exhibits 11, 12 and 13 were not the originals but were duplicate bills and on the basis, the learned Judge found substance in the allegation of the insurer that the claimant has produced the bills to the insurer of the bus and recovered their amount because the bus was insured, and then, by way of duplicate bills, the amount was sought to be recovered over again. The learned Judge found proved the fact of amputation for which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-was considered as appropriate compensation. In respect of one grievous and three simple injuries, a further amount of Rs. 8,000/- was considered appropriate compensation. The learned Judge observed that the claimant has not shown as to what special diets were taken, nor has shown as to who were the attendants and no transportation bills were produced, therefore, no amount could be granted therefor, however a further amount of Rs. 6,000/-was awarded for other inconveniences and losses. Therefore, the total amount of compensation came to Rs. 1,14,000/-and in view of the contributory negligence of the claimant, he was found entitled to an amount of Rs. 57,000/-and deducting Rs. 12,000/-paid under Section 140 of the Act, the claimant was found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 45,000/-. Award was accordingly made against the Non-applicants No. 1 to 4 and interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded from the date of application i.e., 04.09.1991. 10. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant, has candidly admitted the position that the finding on contributory negligence of the appellant as recorded in other Claim Case No. 82/1991 remains binding on the appellant in as much as he was a party to the said case; and that in view of collision in the middle of the road, even otherwise, such finding does not stand to challenge. However, mainplank of submissions of the learned Counsel was that the Tribunal has erred while quantifying the compensation for the claimant-appellant, who was 32 years of age at the time of accident and it was amply established on record that he had to suffer amputation of his leg and has not only lost capacity to carry on his job as a driver but has to lead a crippled life with 50% permanent disablement and in that view of the matter, the assessment of the damages on both, pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses has been abnormally low. Learned Counsel also submitted that minimum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-ought to have been awarded towards non-pecuniary damages; that the Tribunal was in error in not awarding the entire amount of the bills; and that the Tribunal was in error in ignoring all other relevant components of damages like attendants and special diets. Learned Counsel submitted that in view of permanent partial disablement to the extent of 50% with an adequate multiplier the compensation for loss of income also ought to have been awarded. Learned Counsel referred to Schedule-I of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 and contended that the case of the appellant is referable to its Item No. 21 of amputation below knee with stump exceeding 12.70 cms. and amounts to 50% permanent partial disablement and the claimant deserves to be awarded a reasonable compensation, therefore. Learned Counsel for the respondent insurer was submitted that the claim application was incompetent for the owner and the insurer of the bus having not been made parties; that the amount of compensation awarded in this claim case of the year 1991 involving contributory negligence of the appellant cannot be said to be too low or inadequate so as to warrant any interference in appeal; and that the interest awarded by the Tribunal stands at higher rate than reasonable. 12. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record of the case, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned award in so far it relates to the quantum of compensation remains unjustified and the amount awarded is shockingly low and inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. 13. 12. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having scanned through the entire record of the case, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned award in so far it relates to the quantum of compensation remains unjustified and the amount awarded is shockingly low and inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. 13. It has been clearly established on record that the claimant-appellant sustained several injuries including crush injury of his right foot and ultimately it was required to be amputated above the ankle and below the knee. The appellant has deposed that he was firstly taken to Kherwara Hospital, then was referred to Udaipur and then was referred to a private hospital named Ankit Orthopedic, where he remained under treatment for 42 days and was operated upon thrice over, and under the medical advice his right leg had to be amputated. The evidence produced on record, apart from the injury report, includes Exhibit-14, the discharge ticket from the said Ankit Orthopedic Hospital dated 20.05.1991 and it reports about the operations performed on 08.04.1991, 30.04.1991 and 08.05.1991. It has been mentioned that the claimant-appellant sustained crush injury of right foot and compound fractures of tibial plate and fibular head and that the right root was badly crushed and an operation was performed on 08.04.1991 and repairing of the fracture and damaged portion was sought to be done but gradually signs of gangrene developed; on 30.04.1991 again dead skin of the foot was removed and all dead material was cleared but with all efforts, the foot could not be saved and on 08.05.1991 amputation was done. It is established on record that the claimant-appellant has undergone a trauma of the crush injury, operation and ultimate amputation. 14. A case of 50% permanent disablement is clearly made out and an adequate compensation in that regard ought to have been allowed. Learned Judge of the Tribunal has assessed this compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/-only. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Executive Officer Municipal Board vs. Bhinwa Ram, 2001 ACTC 321, to submit that in the case of amputation of leg, the non-pecuniary compensation ought to be minimum Rs. 3,00,000/-. Learned Judge of the Tribunal has assessed this compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/-only. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Executive Officer Municipal Board vs. Bhinwa Ram, 2001 ACTC 321, to submit that in the case of amputation of leg, the non-pecuniary compensation ought to be minimum Rs. 3,00,000/-. Learned Counsel has also relied upon a decision of this Court in Prahlad Rai vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., 2002 (II) ACC 147 and submitted that the learned Tribunal was not right in not awarding compensation for loss of income. 15. So far the cases relief upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant are concerned, it is require to be clarified that the assessment of compensation in any claim case essentially depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case with variety of facts and factors. Non-pecuniary damages are those general damages, which are awarded for the physical pain, shock, suffering and agony which the victim has undergone and would continue to sustain in future on account of the injuries or the disablement, it also includes damages towards loss of amenities of life. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of Bhinwa Ram (Supra), this Court has awarded an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-in place of Rs. 80,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal when there was an amputation at the knee and in the facts of that case an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-was considered to be the minimum non-pecuniary compensation. In the other case of Prahlad Rai, the injured had suffered amputation of leg above the knee and his permanent disablement was taken to the extent of 70%. 16. Having examined the facts of the case with reference to the principles of law laid down for dealing with such claim for compensation, this Court is of opinion that towards non-pecuniary losses of physical pain, shock, inconveniences, disablement and loss of amenities in life, in the present case, where the appellant has suffered amputation of the leg below the knee above the ankle, and having regard to overall circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-appear to be reasonable towards non-pecuniary damages as against Rs. 1,08,000/-assessed by the Tribunal. Towards pecuniary losses, this Court is clearly of the view that the claim of Rs. 5,000/- made by the appellant cannot be said to be unjustified. 2,00,000/-appear to be reasonable towards non-pecuniary damages as against Rs. 1,08,000/-assessed by the Tribunal. Towards pecuniary losses, this Court is clearly of the view that the claim of Rs. 5,000/- made by the appellant cannot be said to be unjustified. Bills produced by the appellant of medicines have wrongly been discarded from consideration merely because they were duplicate bills on the assumption that the originals were likely to have been used for recovering compensation from the insurer of the bus. There is no material whatsoever on record to justify such an assumption. With the kind of injury suffered by the claimant-appellant, further expenditure on attendants and on special diets cannot be ruled out and, therefore, a reasonable amount of Rs. 5,000/-as claimed by the appellant ought to have been granted. 17. The appellant has been shown to be working as a driver and has established his wages to be Rs. 850/-per month, therefore, total loss of income for six months may be allowed at Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant has claimed future loss of income at Rs. 25,000/-in his claim application and so also in his statements and in the overall circumstances of the case, this amount also deserves to be allowed. A further amount of Rs. 1,000/- may be granted towards miscellaneous expenses and, therefore, total loss comes to Rs. 2,36,000/-(Rs. 2,00,000/-+ 5,000/- + 5,000/- +25,000/-+ 1,000/-). 18. In view of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant with equal contribution in the accident, his entitlement to receive the amount from the non-applicants remains at fifty per cent of the loss i.e., at Rs. 1,18,000/-. The Tribunal having awarded Rs. 57,000/-to the appellant, he is held entitled to get a further amount of Rs. 61,000/-over and above the amount awarded under the impugned award. 19. So far the submission of learned Counsel for the insurer of non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the bus is concerned, the same is more formal than of any substance. The award of compensation in this case has been considered limited to the extent of liability of the offending truck. 19. So far the submission of learned Counsel for the insurer of non-impleadment of the owner and insurer of the bus is concerned, the same is more formal than of any substance. The award of compensation in this case has been considered limited to the extent of liability of the offending truck. So far the rate of interest is concerned, apart from the fact that the insurer is not entitled to raise defences except as permitted by the statute, suffice is to point that in the award made in the year 1996 and on the quantum of compensation allowed by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that too excessive interest has been allowed. However, in relation to the enhancement made in this appeal, this Court is of the view that interest at the prevalent rate only should be allowed. 20. As a result of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is partly allowed; the impugned award is modified and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,18,000/-from Rs. 57,000 /-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 61,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application i.e. 04.09.1991 and be deposited by the Respondent No. 4 with the Tribunal within thirty days. On deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/-be paid in cash to the appellant and the remaining amount be placed in a Monthly Income Scheme of the Post Office for six years with the appellant being entitled to periodically receive the recurring amount of interest thereupon. There shall be no order as to costs.