JUDGMENT B.N.MAHAPATRA, J. – This Appeal at the instance of claimant has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenging the award dated 05.07.2011 passed by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Misc. Case Nos.1055-1056/96. 2. The present appeal relates to Misc. Case Nos. 1056/96. The appellant’s case in a nutshell is that on 16.11.1995 at about 11.30 AM while the appellant was moving in a Scooter along with her father-petitioner in Misc. Case No.1055/96 from CDA side towards Sati Choura on the left side of the road, near Rotary Eye Hospital the offending Truck bearing No.OSC-1489 coming from opposite side direction at a high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Scooter. As a result of such accident, both the petitioners in Misc. Case No.1055/96 and daughter of the petitioner in Misc. Case No.1056/96 sustained injuries on their person and were immediately shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital for treatment. According to the claimant, lot of money has been spent for treatment of his daughter. It is stated in the claim petition that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the petitioners had no contribution for such accident claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakh. 3. Before the Tribunal, opposite party No.1, registered owner of the Truck did not contest the case and the case was heard ex parte against him. Opposite Party No.2-Oriental Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing its objections denying the allegations made by the petitioner. According to opposite party No.2-Insurance Company, the petitioner is required to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence by filing required documents. On the whole, the Insurance Company pleaded that it is not liable to pay the compensation and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following five issues: “1. Are the cases maintainable ? 2. Whether the petitioners sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No. OSC1489 (Truck) ? 3. Is the Insurance Company liable to pay any compensation ? 4. Are the claims excessive and arbitrary ? 5. Are the cases maintainable ? 2. Whether the petitioners sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No. OSC1489 (Truck) ? 3. Is the Insurance Company liable to pay any compensation ? 4. Are the claims excessive and arbitrary ? 5. To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled ?” 5. After taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties adduced before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck the alleged accident took pace and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of consolidated amount of Rs.1,50,000/-towards purchase of medicines and pain and sufferings. Learned Tribunal further held that the offending vehicle was plying on the road without permit. Since opposite party No.2 has violated the policy condition, opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with right to recover the same from opposite party No.1, the registered owner of the offending Truck. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal directed opposite party No.2-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 18.11.1996 within a period of 30 days from the date of the award failing which liberty was given to the claimant-appellant to realize the compensation amount in due process of law. Learned Tribunal further directed to keep Rs.1,00,000/-in the name of the petitioner (present appellant) in shape of fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank and to pay the balance amount in cash to the appellant-petitioner. Hence, the present appeal. 9. Mr. K. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the victim girl herself has filed the present appeal. In the accident, her face has been completely disfigured and she had also sustained other multiple injuries on her face, eye and all over body. Learned Tribunal has seen the victim girl who appeared before him and in the evidence of the victim girl learned Tribunal has recorded that the face of the appellant has been disfigured. Rs.2.00 lakhs has been spent for treatment of the victim girl despite her undergoing plastic surgery for the disfigurement of the face, the same could not be removed totally. Rs.2.00 lakhs has been spent for treatment of the victim girl despite her undergoing plastic surgery for the disfigurement of the face, the same could not be removed totally. It is visible prominently on the face of the victim. Due to said accident she had undergone a series of treatment at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as an indoor patient as well as at Gayatri Nursing Home, Mangalabag and Shree Nursing Home, Mangalabag. In spite of all attempts, she could not be cured from the facial disfigurement. Now her facial disfigurement being prominently visible which seriously affects the marital prospects of the appellant victim girl for which she has to suffer for her whole life. Learned Tribunal has lost sight of this aspect while determining the amount of compensation. Due to such disfigurement of face and several scratch marks appearing on her face, the marital prospects of the appellant-victim girl is at stake. Although marital aspect of the appellant has been seriously affected, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on that account. Having held that the claim of expenses of Rs.2.00 lakhs for treatment of the appellant cannot be disbelieved, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, Learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.1.50 lakhs towards purchase of medicines, pain and sufferings. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 (I) TAC 1 (SC) : (2011) 10 SCC 683 , Mr. Panigrahi submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded Rs.1,50,000/-towards loss of amenities including loss of prospects of marriage. 10. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the accident took place in the year 1995. At that point of time, the age of the victim girl was only 4 years and in the meantime 18 years have passed. Now the victim girl is more than 22 years of age. It is not known whether the girl, in the meantime, has got married and the disfigurement/scratch marks on her face have been removed and in the circumstances the awarded amount should not be enhanced. Concluding his argument, Mr. Das prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Now the victim girl is more than 22 years of age. It is not known whether the girl, in the meantime, has got married and the disfigurement/scratch marks on her face have been removed and in the circumstances the awarded amount should not be enhanced. Concluding his argument, Mr. Das prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. On the rival contentions raised by the parties, the only question that falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.1.50 lakhs awarded for the injuries sustained by the appellant-girl on her body including face is just and proper compensation. 12. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer some of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav (supra), taking note of its several judgments including the cases of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 held as under:- “11. The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Sometimes they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term “compensation” used in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. 12. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have a battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimised. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have a battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimised. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. XXX XXX XXX 18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. 19. We shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the appellant is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation under any of the following heads: (i) Loss of earning and other gains due to the amputation of leg. (ii) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. (iv) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the amputation of leg. (v) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage. (vi) Loss of expectation of life. xx xx xx 27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of his life with one artificial leg. (vi) Loss of expectation of life. xx xx xx 27. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities was also meager. It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of his life with one artificial leg. The appellant can be expected to live for at least 50 years. During this period he will not be able to live like a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy life. The prospects of his marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of Rs 1,50,000 for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.” (underlined for emphasis) 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 , held as under:- “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed 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. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for 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.” (underlined for emphasis) 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 , while enhancing compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs.1.00 crore, held as under:- “88. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 , while enhancing compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs.1.00 crore, held as under:- “88. We must emphasize that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The “adequate compensation” that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. 89. It must also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe) as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualised. Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller-coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard. 90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-à-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. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, 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.” (underlined for emphasis) 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra), held as under:- “9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra), held as under:- “9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered.” (underlined for emphasis) 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , at page 348, held as under:- “5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair1, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.2 and Baker v. Willoughby3.] 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair1, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.2 and Baker v. Willoughby3.] 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” (underlined for emphasis) 17. Undisputed facts are that the appellant had sustained multiple injuries on her face, eye and all over the body and she had undergone series of treatment at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack as well as in private Nursing Homes. The accident took place on 16.11.1995. She appeared before the learned Tribunal to give her evidence on 27.10.2010. On the body of papers, in which the evidence of the appellant was recorded, at the end it is written in handwriting that “face has been disfigured”. As it appears, it is written by the learned Tribunal. Thus, even after passage of 15 years and after undergoing plastic surgery, disfigurement of face of the victim girl has not been removed and the learned Tribunal observed that the face has been disfigured. This certainly causes hindrance in the marital prospects of the appellant. Needless to say that face of a girl is the greatest asset so far question of her marriage is concerned. If her face is disfigured, chances of her marriage will be considerably reduced/affected. She cannot get a good match for her. This certainly causes hindrance in the marital prospects of the appellant. Needless to say that face of a girl is the greatest asset so far question of her marriage is concerned. If her face is disfigured, chances of her marriage will be considerably reduced/affected. She cannot get a good match for her. Throughout her life, she will suffer from mental agony. She will be deprived of enjoyment of the worldly amenities. At page-47 of the L.C.R. in the memo dated 11.04.2011 filed by the appellant-victim girl along with her photograph there was mention about her request to take the same in evidence. A look to the photograph reveals that there are several cut marks on the face of the victim girl. In the facts and circumstances, she is entitled to get adequate/fair compensation on this score. Admittedly, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of prospect of her marriage and loss of other amenities. Therefore, I am of the considered view that on this count, compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs should be granted to the appellant, which is over and above the amount of compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs already awarded by the learned Tribunal towards purchase of medicine and pain and sufferings. 18. In the fact situation, respondent no. 2-Insurance Company is directed to pay an additional amount of compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 18.11.1996 till the date of deposit before the learned Tribunal apart from the compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs with interest already granted by the learned Tribunal within eight weeks from today. On deposit of such amount, learned Tribunal shall disburse the same in the manner it has directed in its order. It is open to Respondent No.2-Insurance Company to recover the same from Respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle in a separate proceeding. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.