Hon'ble MOOLCHANDANI, J.—By judgment dated 22nd December 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in Civil Misc. Case No.37/1999, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.92,600/- with interest in favour of the appellant. The appellant, feeling aggrieved with the assessment of compensation, has come up through the appeal at hand under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while submitting arguments has stated that the Tribunal has wrongly passed the award in lower side. The injured is an Army man, who suffered permanent disability and could not be promoted because of disability and impairment suffered despite, the Tribunal has not awarded anything towards disability and loss caused due to nonpromotion and further loss of job, so the appeal may be allowed and the quantum of award may be enhanced. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal has passed the award correctly. The appellant did not submit any evidence with respect to alleged permanent disability or deprivation of promotional aspect and the Tribunal has rightly awarded loss of income and expenses towards medical treatment. There is no wrong committed by the Tribunal, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. Brief facts relating to the mishap indicates that the appellant sustained injuries on 08th October 1997 while his Army vehicle collided and dashed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation's bus No.RJ19-C-4037. Bulk of the facts being no longer disputed are not being enunciated. 5. The Tribunal while adjudicating issue number two relating to compensation has observed as under: ^^bl laca/k esa ,-MCyw 01 y{ehpan dk c;ku gS fd bl nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k mlds iSj dk vkWijs'ku gqvk rFkk og LFkk;h :i ls fodykax gks x;k gSA mldh inksUufr :d x;h rFkk rhu ekg rd dh NqV~Vh;ka ysuh iM+hA izkFkhZ )kjk bl laca/k esa esMhdy izek.k i= Hkh is'k fd;s gSaA izkFkhZ ds vk;h gqbZ pksV dh izd`fr dks ns[krs gq, rFkk izkFkhZ dks gq, Hkfo"; ds uqdlku ds rF; dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ dks bl gsrw ,d eq'r jkf'k 80]000@&:i;s fnykuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA^^ 6. The evidence of claimant-appellant Lakhmi Chand, which was made by him before the Tribunal, is being dealt verbatum as follows: ^^eSa vHkh goynkj dh iksLV ij ua-13678213 lh- dEiuh] 12 xkMZ ¼,e-bZlh-, p-½ )kjk 56 ,-ih-vks- gaWwA 8-10-97 dks QhYM QkbZfjax iksdj.k tk jgs Fks vius tkyhik gSM DokVj ls tSlyesj ds ckn iksdj.k dh rjQ tk jgs FksA eSa Vw VaM xkM+h dk MªkbZoj Fkk esjh xkMh dk ua- 87 lh- 48869 ds gSA esjs ikl lwcsnkj ohjflag ikl esa cSBs FksA pku.k xkao ls 1 fdyksehVj vkxs c<s rks lkeus ls jktLFkku jksMost dh cl tks cgqr rst LihM ls vk jgh Fkh ftldh LihM 70&80 dh FkhA gekjh xkMh dks Vddj ekj nhA esjs nksuksa ikoksa ds QSDpj gks x;k vkSj esjs flj esa pksV vkbZ vkSj esjs iSj LVh;fjax esa QWal x,A ml ,DlhMsaV dh fjiksVZ yS- iksfyUlu us tSlyesj Fkkus esa tkdj ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djokbZA xkM+h ls fudkyus ds ckn esa csgks'k gks x;k eq>s tSlyesj gkWLihVy esa eq>s ys tk;k x;kA tgkW esjk esfMdy eqvk;uk fd;k x;kA tSlyesj ls eq>s tks/kiqj feyVªh gkLihVy esa ys tk;k x;k mlds ckn eq>s fnYyh esa csl gkWLihVy esa ys tk;k x;kA tgkW ij eSa ekpZ rd ogkWa HkrhZ jgkA fnYyh esa esjs vkWijs'ku fd;s x, rFkk jksM~l yxkbZ xbZA ckj ckj eq>s esfMdy psdvi ds fy;s esfMdy cksMZ okys cqykrs FksA djhc Ms< lky nks cSlk[kh ds lgkjs pyk vkSj vHkh Hkh ydMh ds lgkjs py jgk gWwaA esjk tho.kk iSj NksVk iM+ x;k rFkk mBus cSBus esa rdyhQ gksrh gSA eSaus esjs esfMdy laca/kh nLrkost Dyse esa is'k fd;s gaSA eSa LFkkbZ :i ls fodykax gks x;k gaWwA esjs nq?kZVuk M~;wVh ds nkSjku gqbZ Fkh blfy;s eq>s ukSdjh ls ugha fudkyk x;k exj esjk izeks'ku jksd fn;k x;kA esjk ukSdjh esa inksUufr vizsy 99 esa gksuh Fkh exj nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k esa LFkk;h :i ls fodykax gks x;k ftls dkj.k ls esjk izeks'ku jksd fn;k x;kA esjs izeks'ku jksdus ds vkns'k dh udy is'k dj jgk gaWwA djhc ,d efgus dk eq>s 4200@& :i;s dk uqdlku izeks'ku :dus dh otg ls gks jgk gSA djhc rhu lky ds ckn eq>s lwcsnkj dk izeks'ku fey tkrk rFkk 28 lky dh lfoZl esa eq>s fjVk;MZ dj nsrsA jktLFkku jksM+ost ds MªkbZoj vksekjke dh xyrh ls nq?kZVuk gqbZ FkhA iqfyl us pkyku is'k fd;k gS tks vHkh py jgk gSA eSus dksVZ ls pkyku dh udy ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- dh udy] ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ipkZ dh udy] ekSdk ipkZ] ekSdk QnZ] QnZ tCrh jkt0 jksM+ost dh cl] cl dh vkj-lh-] MªkbZoj ykbZlsUl] esjk pksV izfrosnu dh fjiksVZ] esjs foHkkx dh esfMdy fjiksVZ tks bZ-,Dl-ih-1 ls bZ-,Dl-ih-10 gSA nq?kZVuk gksus ds ckn tks esjk esfMdy fd;k x;kA esfMdy esjs foHkkx )kjk fd;k x;k ftldh udys lkFk esa is'k dj jgk gWwA tks bZ-,Dlih-11 ls 15 rd gSA eSa ges'kk ds fy;s viax gks pqdk gWwA ftl fnu ,DlhMsaV gqvk ml fnu esjk gSMDokVj tkyhik Fkk blfy;s bl U;k;ky; ds le{k viuk Dyse is'k fd;k gSA djhc 3 ekg dh esfMdy yho eq>s bl ,DlhMsaV ds )kjk [kjkc djuh iM+hA rFkk eq>s ekufld ijs'kkuh Hkh gqbZA esjs twfu;j Hkh esjs vkfQlj cu pqds gSA vkWijs'ku ds dkj.k vc Hkh esjs iSj esa nnZ gksrk gSA^^ So far as cross-examination is concerned, the evidence has remained uncontroverted. The claimant has narrated in the cross-examination that he has borne expenses towards special diet as well. 7. The Tribunal has observed in the finding on issue No.2 that the injured has succeeded in establishing the factum of disability and deprivation from further promotion but without quantifying the loss distinctly a total sum of Rs.80,000/- has been granted with three months' loss of income towards availment of leave. 8. The claimant-appellant has submitted documentary evidence with respect to disability caused and reason of non-promotion caused because of permanent impairment. Exh.11, which has been issued by the Lt. Col. Vohra discloses cubitus valgus deformity R>L ... both knees flexion severely restricted and it has further opined deformity + disability which is permanent. This fact is very well corroborated by Exh.12, which is a medical casesheet of Military Hospital, Jodhpur as well verifying the treatment undergone by the claimant. 9. Exhibit 13, which is a significant document issued by Lt. Adjt. Vishnu Prasad for Commandant, 12 Guards c/o 56 APO on 19th November 2000, divulges deprivation of further promotion because of accidental disability and it is certified by this document that Havildar Lakhmi Chand Yadav suffered “Tibia Febula both with close head injury N-804, N-853, N-823, E-812 compound comminuted fracture”. This commuted fracture and injury rendered him being physically unfit, hence, he has been categorized to low medical category CEE (permanent) with effect from 08th October 1999. This low medical category CEE has made him incapable for promotion to next higher rank forever. It is also mentioned in the certificate that he has been superseded with effect from 01st April 1999 and Havildars junior to him in seniority had been promoted to next higher rank of Naib Subedar with effect from 01st April 1999, he could not be due to his medical category. 10. This documentary evidence has very well confirmed the permanent injury and resultant blockage of promotion and this has been recited by the claimant in his evidence as well and has remained unrebutted. The claimant-appellant Lakhmi Chand has also stated that due to stoppage of promotional avenues he is subjected to a monthly loss of Rs.4200/- and if so then this damage alone comes to the tune of Rs.4200x12=Rs.50,400/-per annum. The claimant-appellant Lakhmi Chand has also stated that due to stoppage of promotional avenues he is subjected to a monthly loss of Rs.4200/- and if so then this damage alone comes to the tune of Rs.4200x12=Rs.50,400/-per annum. As such, this loss itself comes to the tune of around Rs.2,50,000/- only in a span of five years, so taking guidance from several precedents and considering the evidence adduced, estimated damage might easily have been quantified but these counts have not been properly taken note of by the Tribunal. 11. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, IV (2010) ACC 815 (SC)= (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Court noted (in para 21) that the second schedule appended to M.V. Act, with reference to Section 163A, inter alia, refers to the first schedule under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the context of loss of earning capacity in cases of permanent total or partial disability, and observed (in para 16) thus: “16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen.” The Tribunal has recited and determined the sum awarded for injuries sustained, prospective loss and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-. 12. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen.” The Tribunal has recited and determined the sum awarded for injuries sustained, prospective loss and awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-. 12. The claimant-appellant has successfully established by oral as well as documentary evidence that he suffered permanent disability of CEE (permanent) in nature wherefore he lost opportunity to be promoted on the ranks of Naib Subedar and Subedar. Loss of salary on these promotional posts have been said to be of Rs.4200/- per month. A serious omission, which has been observed in these disability documents is that these do not disclose the percentage of disability suffered by the claimant-appellant. If we take note of the evidence of claimant Lakhmi Chand, then, it explicitly reveals severity of the impairment sustained as he has stated - djhc Ms< lky nks cSlk[kh ds lgkjs pyk vkSj vHkh Hkh ydMh ds lgkjs py jgk gWw ----- eSa LFkkbZ :i ls fodykax gks x;k gWw ----- esjk izeks'ku jksd fn;k x;k ----- He has further stated - eSa ges'kk ds fy;s viax gks pqdk gWw ----- vkWijs'ku ds dkj.k vc Hkh esjs iSj esa nnZ gksrk gSA In view of these injuries, predicament of an Army Havildar, who was driver of an Army vehicle, can very well be perceived and understood. 13. Considering the salary of the claimant-appellant and prospective loss of income/salary owing to non-promotion because of the injuries and disability, the quantification of the damages ought to be in relation to the injury and damage sustained. Though the accidental compensatory system is not a bonanza but the damages suffered ought to be compensated proportionately in a right way to undo the fiscal loss. 14. Though the accidental compensatory system is not a bonanza but the damages suffered ought to be compensated proportionately in a right way to undo the fiscal loss. 14. Taking guidance from several precedents, damages to which the claimant-appellant appears to be entitled, in absence of quantified percentage of disability, this Court is of the view to modify the compensation awarded as under: S. No. PARTICULARS COMPENSATION AMOUNT 1 Loss of future income, amenities in life, pain & suffering, mental & physical shock and trauma, discomfort & hardship (taking monthly loss of Rs.4200x12x5) Rs.2,52,000/- 2 Food & extra nourishment, expenses towards conveyance Rs.28,000/- 3 Loss of benefits because of availing leave for more than 3 months Rs.10,000/- TOTAL Rs.2,90,000/- The respondents are liable to pay the aforesaid modified amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization. The amount already paid in terms of award/interim award shall be adjusted. The award of the Tribunal stands modified as above. The respondent-RSRTC is directed to deposit and pay aforesaid enhanced compensation with interest as above within two months from today per Bank draft favouring the claimant or to deposit the same with the Tribunal and in event of deposit with the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant will be free to receive and seek disbursement from the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed as above. There is no order as to costs.