JUDGMENT : 1. This application by the claimant-appellant is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in M.V. (Suit) No. 98 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 5000/- for the injuries caused to the appellant in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The undisputed facts are that the claimant-appellant while crossing the over-bridge of Kumhardhubi, was dashed by a dumper coming with high speed, as a result of which, the appellant was seriously injured and became unconscious. After the accident, seeing the seriousness of the injury, the appellant was shifted to Central Hospital, Dhanbad where his right mid-arm was amputated. The Medical Board of Civil Hospital, Dhanbad issued handicapped certificate showing 80% disability due to amputation of right arm. The claimant, therefore, filed the claim case claiming compensation of Rs. 11,82,000/-. 3. The claimant-appellant examined witnesses including his wife and proved all the documents showing amputation of his right arm. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as the General Manager in the colliery of Eastern Coalfield Limited and was getting salary of Rs. 11000/-. 4. We would like to quote paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment to show as to how the Tribunal considered the evidence and recorded finding: 18. Issue Nos. VI & VIII: I have already come to the finding that plaintiff Anm Seraphim had received injury by Truck No. BHG/8375 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. BHG/8375. In order to determine the quantum of compensation, the plaintiff has stated that at the time of accident, he was aged about 51 years and was getting Rs. 11,000/- per month and has also filed Exts. B & B/I salary certificate for the month of November, 2001 and December, 200 and has also filed the physical handicapped certificate, showing that he was 80% physical handicapped. Besides this the plaintiff has stated in his evidence that at the time of accident he was working as Office Supdt., G.M. Office, Mugma, E.C.L. and he was promoted in 1995 as a Office Supdt. Due to Handicapped he cannot fulfil the criteria of his further promotion and due to non promotion in the office Cadre he is suffering loss of Rs. 5000/- to 7000/- per month. He has further stated that he want to fix artificial limb and Rs. Due to Handicapped he cannot fulfil the criteria of his further promotion and due to non promotion in the office Cadre he is suffering loss of Rs. 5000/- to 7000/- per month. He has further stated that he want to fix artificial limb and Rs. 1,50,000/- will be expensed for the same. The learned Counsel for the defendant No. 2 has stated that the PW-2 clearly stated in para 20 of his cross examination that expenses incurred during treatment at Central Hospital have been paid by the Company and in para 18 he has stated that promotion is on the Exam basis and the exam. Has not been conducted till the date of deposition who he has not stated that due to amputation of hand he could not appear in the examination. Similarly PW-2 his wife has also stated that no effect in conjugal life due to amputation of the hand of her husband and the plaintiff has also stated that his prestige was also not lower down in the society. 19. Perused the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties. From perusal of para 20 of the evidence of the plaintiff it transpires that Company has beared all the expense of his treatment and he has also stated in para 18 of his cross-examination promotion benefit will be given only the basis of examination and no examination was conducted till the date of his evidence. This PW-2 has also stated hat he is not in a position towards his usual duty as Office Supdt. of G.M. Office due to the said accident and he was performing his duty usual. PW-3 has also staled that there is no effect in the conjugal life due to the accident of her husband. There is no breakage in the service. There is no future loss to the plaintiff as the plaintiff is working as a Office Supdt. in the G.M. Office and getting his salary. He has not suffered any loss of income and there is no danger of his service. From perusal of Exts.3 it transpires that the plaintiff is physically handicapped. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled only general damages and loss of pain and suffering. The plaintiff has admitted in para 20 of his cross examination that the Company has beared all expenses of his treatment. From perusal of Exts.3 it transpires that the plaintiff is physically handicapped. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled only general damages and loss of pain and suffering. The plaintiff has admitted in para 20 of his cross examination that the Company has beared all expenses of his treatment. Therefore, the plaintiff is only entitled for general damages and loss of pain and suffering and according to schedule II of the M.V. Act, the plaintiff is only entitled for Rs. 5000/-. Thus the plaintiff No. 1 shall receive the aforesaid amount of compensation from the defendant No. 2 (National Insurance Co. Ltd.). Thus, these issues are decided accordingly. 5. Surprisingly, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5000/- in a case where because of the accident, the appellant lost his right arm. The loss suffered by the appellant and the mental pain and agony which the appellant suffered and will suffer till his life-time, cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, in any case, just to meet the ends of justice, we are of the definite opinion, that a minimum compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs will meet the ends of justice. Learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that at least a compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs should be awarded to the claimant-appellant. 6. In the facts and circumstances, we allow this appeal and enhance the compensation amount to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs fifty thousand only) which will carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal.