JUDGMENT B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. 1. The appellant who is none other than the claimant of the claim petition in O.P. No. 1770 of 2005 filed against the respondents owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Court below') granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 7% per annum out of claim of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) filed this appeal by claiming enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the appeal by allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri B. Venkata Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. V. Durga, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2. 2(a). The contentions in the grounds of appeal in the nutshell are that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court below is utterly low, unjust and requires interference not only the claim of compensation as prayed for but also rate of interest, hence to allow the appeal as prayed for. 2(b) It is the contention of 2nd respondent-insurer in opposing the claim that the Court below itself awarded reasonable compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the fracture of the right leg tibia with bone debridement, the only injuries sustained by the claimant including for the period of treatment undergone and rightly rejected the medical bills of ayurvedic treatment for not supported by prescriptions of doctor even the claimant being a medical officer having knowledge and is in Government service, it cannot be considered and hence to dismiss the appeal. 3. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Court below is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 4. 3. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Court below is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 4. The facts of the case as proved before the Court below and not in dispute in this appeal, are that on 25.03.2004 the petitioner and his wife were proceeding towards Pargi, Ranga Reddy District on his motor cycle and when they reached near the outskirts of Nandarpur Village, Pargi Mandai, one tanker bearing No. AP 12 U 3141 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result, both of them fell down and the claimant sustained multiple fractures and injuries and shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment which occurrence is proved by PW.1's evidence with reference to Ex.A1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 118 of 1996 and Ex.A2 charge sheet is rightly concluded by the Tribunal. Thus, it is only the quantum dispute. 5. Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, it is apt to mention the famous quote of Lord Morris that, perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963 (2) All.E.R. 432, remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) All. Upjohn LJ in Charle red House Credit v. Tolly 1963 (2) All.E.R. 432, remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver 1969 (1) All. E.R. 555 observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding the compensation in case of death for loss of dependency and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially to the children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred for transport and funeral etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred for said injuries sustained from nature of treatment required. The appeal claim herein is thus confined to the quantum from the contention of not correctly taken the multiplicand and multiplier with future prospects in earnings and on the quantum of consortium and funeral expenses etc., in arriving a sum for awarding just compensation. 6. In this regard, it is well laid down by the Apex Court (Three Judges Bench) in the latest expression in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 : 2013 (4) ALT 35 (SC) at paragraph Nos. 1 and 7 referring to the earlier expressions in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 : 2010 (1) An.W.R. 402 (SC) : 2009 (4) SCJ 91 and Nagappa v Gurudayal Singh 2003 ACJ 12 : 2003 (1) An.W.R. 135 (SC) that compensation which appears to it to be just, has to be assessed and awarded by the Tribunal set up under Section 166 of the Act. The expression 'just compensation' has been explained in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. The expression 'just compensation' has been explained in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) holding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. 'Just compensation' is an adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. 7. From the above legal position, coming to the factual matrix of the case, to decide the quantum of compensation and rate of interest, the injuries sustained by the claimant is fracture of right leg tibia, and there was also bone debridement, as it is evidenced from Ex.A3 discharge ticket of Osmania General Hospital and Ex.A4 discharge card of S.V.S Hospital and it shows the claimant having undergone treatment initially in Civil Hospital, Kondangal, therefrom he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and also undergone treatment at S. V.S. Hospital, Yenugonda, Mahaboobnagar and Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 prescriptions and reports respectively also proved the same. The Court below considering the said fracture, bone debridement and during the period of treatment from 27.03.2004 to 01.05.2004 awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the head of pain and sufferance and an amount of Rs. 14,296/- out of Ex.A7 medical bills of Rs. 32,741/- saying medical bills of Ayurvedic treatment as opposed by the insurer have to be excluded, besides Rs. 5,000/- towards incidental charges and traveling expenses and Rs. 10,400/- towards loss of earnings by rounded it to Rs.50,000/- 8. A perusal of the said finding of the Court below, rejecting the ayurvedic medical bills is unsustainable as it is not the case that the amount of bills are not genuine. In the absence of which merely because the insurer opposed the claim, the Court below has no right to out rightly reject but for to appreciate how far the bills are to be considered. Thereby it is just to take all the medical bills produced for Rs. 32,741/-incurred for the claimant himself is a medical officer in Government service and it is not the case of anybody that he claimed medical reimbursement from the Government and not incurred the amount from his pocket despite he deposed the said fact as PW.1. The other amounts awarded are Rs. 32,741/-incurred for the claimant himself is a medical officer in Government service and it is not the case of anybody that he claimed medical reimbursement from the Government and not incurred the amount from his pocket despite he deposed the said fact as PW.1. The other amounts awarded are Rs. 5,000/-as incidental charges including transport charges, an amount of Rs.10,400/- towards loss of earnings. In fact so far as loss of earnings amount of Rs. 10,400/- awarded by Court below for 78 days availed by him and at Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary is unsustainable in the absence of proof that he availed any loss of pay leave or lost encashment of any earned leave and not medical leave without loss of pay. 9. Having regard to the above, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the said fracture including pain and sufferance, an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- for bone debridement, an amount of? 30,000/- towards medical bills out of Ex.A7-medical bills for an amount of Rs. 32,741/- and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges and attendant charges, in all comes to Rs. 65,000/- is just compensation to award by increasing the rate of interest from 7% to 7 1/2% as per the settled expression in Rajesh (supra). Accordingly, point 1 for consideration is answered. POINT -2: 10. Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Court below on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 65,000/- and by increasing the rate of interest from 7% to 714% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. The respondents, who are joint and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit the said amount with interest within one month from today, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs in the appeal. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed.