Judgment :- SHYLENDRA KUMAR J 1. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is by the claimant who had suffered serious injuries in an accident that took place on 10.1.2004 involving a SWARAJ MAZDA bearing Registration No.KA-32-3690 owned by the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent arrayed as respondents not only in this appeal but also before the Tribunal, in M.V.C. No. 159/05 on the file of Principal District Judge & M.A.C.T., Gulbarga. 2. The injuries and the consequences resulted in a permanent loss of right arm to the claimant-appellant, who was working as a school teacher and was aged 35 years at the time of the accident. She put forth a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. 3. The claim application was resisted by the insurance company. The Tribunal having gone through the oral evidence let in-on behalf of claimant, deposing himself as PW1 and examining one Dr. Ramakant Kulkarni, an Orthopedic Surgeon as PW2 and on perusing documentary evidence marked as Exs.Pl to P22, was of the view that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,90.000/- comprised as under: 1) Loss of future income Rs.50,000/- 2) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- 3) Loss of amenities in life Rs.60,000/- 4) Medical expenses Rs.40,000/- --------------- TOTAL RS.1,90,000/- 4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation which, according to the appellant is too meagre for the gravity of injuries suffered by her in the said disaster that struck her on 10-01-2004, the present appeal is filed for enhancement. 5. We have heard Sri Sanjeev Patil, learned counsel for the appellant on behalf of Sri Basavaraj Kareddy and Smt. H. Sumitra, learned counsel for 3rd respondent- insurance company. 6. Examined from any angle, we find that the amount of Rs.40,000/-towards pain and suffering in a case where the entire right upper limb which got so mutilated, it had to be amputed up to shoulder joint, resulting in permanent loss of right upper limb to the appellant, is definitely too meagre. The pain, perhaps, was very severe at the time of the accident and it became a continuing pain to the injured person as it led to the amputation of right upper limb and in fact, will be a continued suffering during the rest of her life. The pain, perhaps, was very severe at the time of the accident and it became a continuing pain to the injured person as it led to the amputation of right upper limb and in fact, will be a continued suffering during the rest of her life. This is an experience not amenable to quantification in terms of monetary compensation, but the law can provide only this much and nothing more. Therefore, we enhance the amount of Rs.40,000/-awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. 7. With regard to loss of amenities, the Tribunal has not appreciated the real nature of the loss to a person losing the entire upper limb. The right upper limb is a very important essential part of the body for any normal person and for a teacher like the appellant if she has to live for the rest of her life without the right hand/arm it is a real loss of amenities in life. 8. Though Smt. Sumitra, learned counsel for the insurance company would argue that it is not as though the claimant-appellant has lost her job and therefore, does not suffer any future loss of earnings and is not entitled for enhancement, in the absence of any appeal by the insurance company, we would not like to disturb the compensation awarded under the head ‘Loss of future income’, but we confine to the correcting the quantification of compensation under the head 'Loss of amenities', and in our opinion, it is too harsh on any person to live without the entire right upper limb/arm and monetary compensation has to be on a higher scale than the one awarded in a case of fatality. It is, therefore, we enhance the compensation under this head from Rs.60,000/-to Rs.2,00,000/-. 9. It is, therefore, we enhance the compensation under this head from Rs.60,000/-to Rs.2,00,000/-. 9. In so far as medical expenses are concerned, as we are unable to find any supportive material from the evidence on record, justifying any enhancement under this head though urged for enhancement by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal has erroneously disallowed the claim of the injured person towards cost of artificial limb, which could, perhaps to some extent, serve the purpose of covering the disability of amputation, although it cannot be functionally useful that has to be considered separately and the actual medical expenses incurred by the appellant for receiving treatment in respect of the injuries attributable to the accident and the amount of Rs.40,000/- as quantified by the tribunal under this head is not disturbed. 10. However, in so far as the appellants claim towards fixing of an artificial limb is concerned, we find that Dr. Ramakant Kulkarni examined as PW2. has deposed that the injured can definitely use an artificial limb for improving her condition. 11. This part of the evidence led on behalf of the appellant being an opinion given by an expert and not in any way challenged by the insurance company in the course of cross-examination of the doctor, we find the reasoning of the Tribunal for totally denying any relief to the claimant under this head, to be nothing short of a perverse finding, as the Tribunal has used a rather unacceptable and irrational method of reasoning to say that adverse inference should be drawn against the claimant, as she had neither brought the limb to the court, nor displayed it by wearing it on her body. 12. A finding of this nature, in our view, is nothing short of a perverse finding, as the question is not whether the claimant had brought/displayed the artificial limb wearing it on her body as a material object, but whether the unchallenged testimony of the doctor should be accepted on its face value or not. Unless the Tribunal has reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Doctor and in fact nothing having been indicated in the order, we deem it proper to award suitable compensation under this head, as this is a case, where there is a possibility for the claimant to make use of the artificial limb. Unless the Tribunal has reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Doctor and in fact nothing having been indicated in the order, we deem it proper to award suitable compensation under this head, as this is a case, where there is a possibility for the claimant to make use of the artificial limb. Therefore, she should be enabled to avail it and merely because she did not possess one, cannot be the criterion for denying compensation under this head. The bill produced by the claimant for Rs.1,00,000/- was though erroneously and presumptively disbelieved by the Tribunal, as she had not produced the artificial limb before the court, it definitely serves the purpose of ascertaining its price if she has to acquire it. Therefore, we allow an amount of Rs.l,00,000/- under this head as the value of the artificial limb that can be used by the claimant for functional / cosmetic use / purpose. 13. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: SI. No. HEAD OF AWARDED BY ENHANCED/RETAINED COMPENSATON TRIBUNAL BY THIS COURT Rs. Rs. 1. Loss of future income 50,000-00 RETAINED 2. Pain & suffering 40,000-00 1,00,000-00 3. Loss of amenities in life 60,000-00 (enhanced by Rs.1,40,000/- 4. Medical expenses 40,000-00 Retained 5. Cost of artificial limb ------- 1,00,000/- TOTAL 1,90,000-00 4,90,000-00 14. In the result this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. Enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization and to be paid by the 3rd respondent-insurance company within eight weeks from today. 16. So far as disbursement and investment of enhanced compensation is concerned, it shall be in the same ratio as indicated by the Tribunal. 17. The appeal is partly allowed.