JUDGMENT 1. - The misc. appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation of Motor Vehicles M.A.C.T. Case No. 532 of 2003, whereby the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 4,91,000/- only. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 28.6.2003 at about 10-10.30 p.m. when the claimant was going on foot and reached near Bhankrota Petrol Pump, a loading jeep bearing No. RJ 14 - G 9778 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver in fast speed came on the wrong side and hit the claimant, resulting in severe injuries on both his legs and on other parts of body. The claimant is a young man of 25 years of age and was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month from agricultural income and by selling milk. On account of the injury sustained in the accident claimant had to remain in hospital for several months, later on during treatment one of his leg was amputated and there was 85 per cent permanent disability as certified by the hospital authorities due to accident. It is also averred in the claim petition that there were fracture of cervical spine C-2 and C-3.It is also averred in the claim petition that claimant has become completely paralysed and is not in a position to do his routine daily work and is dependent on an attendant. In all total compensation was claimed of Rs. 20,55,000/- under different heads. The respondents filed their written statements and denied the contents of the claim petition in relation to the negligence of the driver of the jeep but disclosed the fact that the jeep was insured with respondent No. 2.The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed five issues including relief. In support of the claim A-W-1, Lala Ram; A-W-2, Bhag Chand and A-W-3, Navendra Mathur were produced in evidence by the claimant and in the documentary evidence 140 documents were tendered in evidence. The learned Tribunal after hearing both sides awarded in all compensation of Rs. 4,91,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition vide its award dated 7.12.2005. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the claimant. 3. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned judgment/award and material available on record. 4. 4,91,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition vide its award dated 7.12.2005. Hence, this misc. appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the claimant. 3. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned judgment/award and material available on record. 4. In the present matter, no appeal has been filed by the insurance company and the factum of accident has not been disputed, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the factum of accident and negligence on the part of the vehicle driver in view of uncontroverted position in relation to the accident. 5. In the present matter, the point for consideration is as to whether compensation awarded is adequate compensation or the same required to be enhanced. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 4 which is in relation to compensation, has awarded compensation in the following manner : Due to loss of income on account of 85 per cent permanent disability Rs. 3,00,000/- Due to injuries sustained on various parts of body and for pain and mental suffering and treatment expenditure Rs. 1,50,000/- Attendant expenditure Rs. 10,000/- Special diet, medical expenses, transport expenses and other, expenses Rs. 30,000/- Cost of litigation Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs. 4,91,000/- 6. It appears from the material available on record and in view of admitted position that the Medical Board constituted certified that there was 85 per cent permanent disability as one of leg of the claimant was amputated. By the evidence produced, it was proved that claimant has now become completely paralysed and cannot even walk properly and perform his daily routine work and will always require an attendant to look after him. In relation to the income of the deceased the learned Tribunal found that there was no satisfactory evidence adduced to prove that by agricultural income and by selling milk claimant was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal only considered Rs. 50/- per day income of the claimant and awarded compensation as stated above. 7. It is to be seen that a young man of 25 years of age has been completely paralysed and more or less his life has become painful. He shall have to depend upon others throughout his life. He will always require an attendant to look after him due to spinal cord injury and amputation of leg. 7. It is to be seen that a young man of 25 years of age has been completely paralysed and more or less his life has become painful. He shall have to depend upon others throughout his life. He will always require an attendant to look after him due to spinal cord injury and amputation of leg. All these factors are necessary to take into consideration while awarding compensation. 8. It shall be proper before proceeding further in the matter to examine that law developed in such matters and principles laid down therein for the purpose to decide just compensation in a case. 9. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), it has been held that whenever Tribunal or court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. 10. In case of Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu, 1999 ACJ 1105 (SC) it has been held that while assessing the damages, the court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy, though conjectures to some extent are inevitable. 11. In another case of Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), wherein the injured sustained several fractures in leg resulting in shortening of leg by 3", who was 17 years old. He suffered permanent disability. He underwent bone grafting and hospitalisation. The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 4,58,000/- . The accident had occurred in the year 1977. 12. In case of Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v. R. Sethuram, 1996 ACJ 1022 (Karnataka), wherein mitigation of damages were permitted to be raised at appellate stage for the first time. The injured was 33 years old, employed in USA and was green card holder. The injured became crippled for life as his right hand always remained in a clawed position and he could not walk without the aid of a stick. The injured has lost the lustre of youthful life including sex life and participation in social activities, sports and swimming. He lost the salary of 31 months. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,32,900/- for medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards general damages. The injured has lost the lustre of youthful life including sex life and participation in social activities, sports and swimming. He lost the salary of 31 months. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,32,900/- for medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards general damages. The award of the Tribunal was upheld by the Apex Court by the judgment reported in Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v. R. Sethuram, 1999 ACJ 1278 (SC). 13. In the case of Jitendra Singh v. Islam, 1998 ACJ 1301 (Rajasthan), wherein, the injured had sustained amputation of left leg and permanent disability to the extent of 55 percent. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- as non - pecuniary damages for loss of amenities of life, mental agony and pain and suffering plus Rs. 4,000/- towards medical expenses. Supreme Court allowed non - pecuniary damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 14. In case of Bhagwan Singh Meena v. Jai Kishan Tiwari, 1999 ACJ 1200 (Rajasthan), the non - pecuniary damages were enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/- in case of amputation of right leg of the injured. 15. In the case of Gandhari Ramesh v. Janardhan, 1999 ACJ 816 (A.P.), the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,66,000/- in the case of total severance of right arm of the injured having loss of efficiency to the extent of 90 percent. 16. In case of Ekta Khaitan v. Sita Ram, 2000 ACJ 744 (Rajasthan), wherein the right leg and right middle finger of injured were amputated. She sustained fractures in both the thigh bones and left leg. Yet in another case of Inspector General, Stamp & Registration v. Bhagwan Singh, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 267 of 2000; decided on 22.9.2000, this court upheld the award of Rs. 5,40,000/- non - pecuniary damages and pecuniary loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with Rs. 1,25,000/- as such the total award of Rs. 7,65,000/- was upheld which was awarded to the injured who suffered amputation of left leg. This court has held as under: "For determination of the quantum of compensation the court has to take into consideration damages separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non - pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non - pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earningof profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages towards mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." 17. In the present case, it has been established by oral as well as by documentary evidence that there is spinal cord injury and there is amputation of a leg of the claimant. The life of the claimant has become completely paralysed. Throughout his life he would be requiring an attendant to look after him.There is permanent disability as certified by the hospital authorities which is more than 85 per cent. The claimant will not be able to get suitable employment throughout his life and he would not even be able to do the work of agricultural or the work of a labour. It is also a proved fact that the injured is also required to support his family whereas he himself has become dependent. It cannot be disputed looking to the spinal cord injuries that the claimant would be requiring medicine throughout his life. 18. In view of above stated facts as has been established by the evidence adduced on behalf of claimant, I am of the opinion that the compensation which has been awarded in this case by the learned Tribunal is at the lower side and needs to be suitably enhanced taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the different High Courts including our own High Court. 19. 19. The award of the learned Tribunal is to be modified in the following manner : Due to loss of income on account of 85 per cent permanent disability Rs. 4,00,000/- Due to injuries sustained on various parts of body and for pain and mental suffering and treatment expenditure Rs. 2,00,000/- Attendant expenditure Rs. 1,00,000/- Special diet, medical, expenses, transport expenses of and other expenses Rs. 50,000/- Cost of litigation Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs. 7,5 1,000/- In view of foregoing discussions and reasons mentioned above the total amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 7,51,000/- to be awarded to the claimant and shall bear interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The balance amount of compensation shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by respondents jointly and severally. Any amount so far paid shall be adjusted out of the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- . Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid in cash, which shall be deposited in any nationalised bank in savings bank account for making day - to - day expenses and remaining amount shall be deposited in FDR's in any of the nationalised bank for a minimum period of three years with the liberty to claimant to withdraw the interest, if so required by him. With the above observation the misc. appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed. *******