JUDGMENT 1. - The United India Insurance Company Ltd. has challenged the award dated 9.10.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behrod District Alwar, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the claimant-respondent, Chhajuram, for the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. 2. The brief facts of he case are that on 20.11.2005 around 1:00 P.M. Chhajuram and his brother-in-law were going on a cycle from Sundrawali to Nagar. While they were near a place called Dalama Baba, very close to Nagar, a tractor being driven rashly and negligently came to the wrong side of the road, and collided with the claimant and his brother-in-law. Consequently, the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Initially the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 3,53,500/- vide award dated 20.11.2010. Since the claimant was aggrieved by the said award, he challenged the same before this Court by filing an Appeal, namely S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2827/2011. By order dated 25.9.2012 this Court remanded the case back to the learned Tribunal and directed the learned Tribunal to decide afresh on issue No. 2. Thus the claimant went back to the learned Tribunal. By award dated 9.10.2013, while deciding issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal has enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 3,53,500/- to Rs. 9,00,000/-. Hence this appeal by the Insurance Company before this Court. 3. Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, the learned counsel for Insurance Company, has contended that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for the sudden increase in the compensation amount. Secondly, while initially in the award dated 20.11.2010 the learned Tribunal had taken the permanent disability of the claimant as 50%, in the present impugned award it has taken his permanent disability as 70%. Therefore, the award deserves to be interfered with. 4. On the other hand Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, the learned counsel for the claimant, who has appeared as Caveator, has contended that in the first award dated 20.11.2010 the learned Tribunal had not granted any compensation for the non-pecuniary category. Therefore, in the present award dated 9.10.2013 the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the nonpecuniary category. While doing so, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the case of Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2012 ACJ (SC) 28] . Therefore, in the present award dated 9.10.2013 the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the nonpecuniary category. While doing so, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the case of Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2012 ACJ (SC) 28] . Thus, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has given cogent reasons for granting Rs. 6,00,000/- for non-pecuniary category. Secondly, considering the fact that in the case of Govind Yadav (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances had taken the permanent disability to be 70%, therefore, the learned Tribunal was equally justified in taking the permanent disability of the claimant as 70%. Hence the learned counsel has supported the impugned award. 5. A bare perusal of the award dated 20.11.2010 and of the award dated 9.10.2013 clearly brings out the fact that in the former award no amount was paid for the non-pecuniary categories. However, in the latter award Rs. 6,00,000/- lac have been granted for the non-pecuniary category. While doing so, the learned Tribunal has relied on the case of Govind Yadav (supra). In the said case Govind Yadav, a young man of 24 years, had met with a vehicular accident. Due to the accident, one of his legs was amputated. Due to the amputation, he not only lost his job as a Helper, but also faced a bleak future. Relying on the case of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka [ 2010 ACJ 38 (SC)] : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1503) the Apex Court opined:- "At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous piece, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity." Moreover, the Apex Court considered the different categories for nonpecuniary benefits : it looked into the loss of earning (and other gains) due to amputation of leg, loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused 4 due to the amputation of leg, loss of amenities including loss of prospects of marriage, loss of expectation of life. Considering the fact that a sudden loss of leg would not only lead to pain and trauma, but would also lead to a life of hardship, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was too meager. Hence in the non-pecuniary categories, the Apex Court enhanced the compensation amount by manifolds. 6. The learned Tribunal has taken its cue from the case of Govind Yadav (supra) and has merely granted a compensation in the non-pecuniary category to the claimant, which it failed to do so in the first award dated 20.11.2010. Hence the contention raised by the learned counsel that the compensation amount has been increased without any rhyme or reason, obviously the said contention is unacceptable. 7. Even for enhancing the percentage of disability, the learned Tribunal has relied on the case of Govind Yadav (supra). Since the learned Tribunal has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court, its approach can neither be faulted nor questioned. 8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******