JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT, Bangalore vide judgment and award dated 18.01.2013 in MVC No.5311/2011. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under: 3. It is stated in the claim petition that on 20.07.2011 at about 8.50 a.m., the claimant namely M.G.Annapoorna, after alighting from BMTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01/F-4483, opposite to Komarla group, on Krishna Rao Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore, and when she was proceeding, the driver of the bus all of a suddenly moved the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. Due to the said impact, claimant fell down and the rear side of the bus ran over the right leg of the claimant and thereby, she sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, she filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation, by urging various grounds. 4. In pursuance to issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed written statement denying petition averments. 5. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues. In order to substantiate the case, the guardian of minor claimant was examined as PW.1 and three witnesses were examined as PW.2 to PW.4 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P33 were got marked. On behalf of respondents, the driver of bus was examined as RW.1 and another witness was examined as RW.2 and Exs.R1 to R.3(iii) were marked. The Tribunal after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the present appeal, by urging various grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and the same has to be modified. Further, he contends that the appellant has sustained degloving injury to her lower limb and she was compelled to get hospitalized for long time on three occasions. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and the same has to be modified. Further, he contends that the appellant has sustained degloving injury to her lower limb and she was compelled to get hospitalized for long time on three occasions. She underwent surgeries and several procedures have been done in order to cure the injured part. Despite effective and continuous treatment, the appellant could not recuperate from the injuries, and due to the effect of grievous injuries, it has left its remarks on the entire lower limb with several restrictions functionally. The claimant being a girl has to bear the disability as well as the scar in the entire area of the legs. The medical evidence reveals that there is disability of 18% to whole body. The Tribunal without appreciating the entirety of case in a proper perspective has passed the impugned judgment and the same requires interference of this Court. 7. Further, the Tribunal has not taken note of the marriage prospects of the appellant and the Tribunal is not justified in lesser compensation for loss of amenities in life. Further, the Tribunal has not considered the compensation properly for the medical expenses incurred by the parents. The appellant has lead the evidence of PW.4 to demonstrate the expenses incurred to get physiotherapy. Merely on technical grounds, the Tribunal is not justified in discarding the evidence and not awarding any compensation under this head also needs to be modified suitably. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the loss of future earning capacity in view of the 18% disability to the whole body. Hence, the same needs to be considered by this Court. On all these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant seeks intervention of this Court and prays for allowing the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - insurance company submits the insured has violated the policy conditions and there is a delay of two days in filing the FIR and the father of the claimant has entered into a compromise with the driver of the offending vehicle by receiving money incurred towards treatment of the claimant. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - insurance company submits the insured has violated the policy conditions and there is a delay of two days in filing the FIR and the father of the claimant has entered into a compromise with the driver of the offending vehicle by receiving money incurred towards treatment of the claimant. The accident occurred mainly due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and as per the wound certificate the claimant has suffered only simple injuries and hence, they are not entitled for any enhancement. Further, it is contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01/F-4483 and he has not caused the accident but some other vehicle has caused the accident. He contends that the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded just and fair compensation, which does not call for interference of this Court and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. In this context of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also, learned counsel for respondent - insurance company, it is relevant to go through the evidence of PW.1 - mother of minor-claimant who has stated that the accident has occurred only due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and due to the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. In order to substantiate her oral evidence, she has produced documents as such as Ex.P1-FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 - Mahazar, Ex.P3 - IMV report, Ex.P4 - wound certificate, Ex.P5 - sketch, Ex.P6 - charge sheet. 10. PW.2, the eye witness to the incident has stated that on the date of accident, she was also traveling in the BMTC bus from Veerabhadranagar to Shivajinagar, Bangalore. In the said bus, a school girl aged about 15 years, i.e., the claimant was also traveling and alighted near V.V.Puram and when she was walking ahead, the driver of the said bus started to move the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant from the left side of the bus, as a result, claimant fell down and the left back wheel of the BMTC bus ran over the right leg of the claimant. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the bus driver, the accident had occurred and the claimant sustained grievous injuries which has led to physical impairment. 11. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate. It reveals that the claimant has sustained degloving injury on right leg from the lower third thigh to ankle on the right lower limb, with soft tissue exposed. Exs.P29 to 31 are the case sheets. Ex.P7 (a) to (c) are the discharge summaries. PW.3 - Orthopaedic surgeon, KIMS hospital has also stated in detail about treatment undergone by the claimant in the hospital. He has opined that the injury is simple in nature. Further, the claimant has took treatment as inpatient thrice for total period of 83 days. Keeping this in view, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, it is relevant to note that the claimant is a school girl aged about 15 years at the time of accident and was studying in SSLC. Considering her age and the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment undergone by her, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.75,000/- appears to be on lower side and therefore, another sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded under this head. 12. The Tribunal while considering the compensation towards loss of academic year of injured claimant, has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. It is relevant to note that claimant is a student of SSLC and due to accident has lost one academic year. Ex.P12 and 13 are the school certificate and study certificate which were issued in the months of January 2012 and September 2011 respectively. According to the medical records, the claimant was under treatment till February 2012. Due to the accident, the claimant might not have concentrated on her education. At the time of accident, the claimant was in SSLC and definitely it is a turning point in the career of a student and due to the accident, she was not able to take her exams and has lost precious one year of her academic career. In that view of the matter, it would be just and proper, if another sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards loss of academic year. 13. In that view of the matter, it would be just and proper, if another sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards loss of academic year. 13. The Tribunal while considering the gravity of injuries sustained and the nature of treatment taken by the claimant, has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability, loss of unhappiness and amenities. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 in her evidence has stated that the accidental injuries have not completely healed, the claimant cannot walk, sit, squat on the floor, cannot lift or carry weight and she has been put to permanent disability due to the accidental injuries. PW.3 Doctor B.S.Jayaram, an Orthopaedic Surgeon of KIMS hospital has stated that while the claimant was examined for the purpose of disability, he found that the claimant was having deformity of right thigh, she was limping at right side and having difficulty in walking for long distance. Further, the range of movements on right knee is restricted. He assessed the disability to an extent of 54.5% to the right lower limb. According to discharge summaries and case sheets, immediately after the accident, claimant was taken to KIMS hospital on 20.07.2011 and took treatment as inpatient till 3.9.2011. Ex.P29, case sheet reflect that claimant has sustained degloving injury to the right thigh lower third till her ankle, she has underwent splint skin grafting, twice and during her treatment she has underwent wound debridement repeatedly. As the wound at the donor area of left thigh was not healed, she was again admitted as per Ex.P.30, case sheet. Tendons of right thigh was exposed due to degloving injury and thereby, skin grafting was done by taking skin from the left thigh. Subsequently, she developed difficulty on her left thigh donor area and for that she was treated as inpatient in the hospital. By looking in to the nature of the injuries suffered and the duration of treatment, though the said injuries may not result in any restriction of movements, but the same has resulted in great disfigurement of lower limb of the claimant, which leads to unhappiness and loss of amenities in future life. If the sufferer cannot be restored to the original position, the law has to endeavor to give atleast reasonably a fair equalant in terms of money. If the sufferer cannot be restored to the original position, the law has to endeavor to give atleast reasonably a fair equalant in terms of money. The claimant cannot be put back again into her original position but utmost care has to be given while granting fair and full compensation. 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. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which is suffered as a result of such injury. This means that the claimant has to be compensated for her inability to lead a full life, inability to enjoy those normal amenities which she would have enjoyed. Thus, keeping in view the age of claimant who is minor girl of 15 years at the time of accident and having sustained grievous injuries as stated supra, I deem it just and proper to award another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of unhappiness and amenities. 14. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses having regard to the nature of injuries. In the cross-examination, PW.3 Doctor has admitted that the claimant was treated by plastic surgeon. Ex.P30 and P31 shows that due to the degloving injury to the right lower limb the claimant was compelled to get hospitalized for long time on three occasions. Despite effective and continuous treatment, the claimant could not be able to recover and the effect of the injuries was grievous enough that it left remarks on the entire lower limbs with several restrictions functionally. The claimant at the time of accident was aged about 15 years and was a school going girl. She has to bear the disability as well as the scar in the entire area of the legs. The ugliness of the injured part demonstrates that the claimant will definitely be loosing her marriage prospects. As per the evidence, she is required to undergo further treatment from the plastic surgeon for the plastic surgery of the wound. She has to bear the disability as well as the scar in the entire area of the legs. The ugliness of the injured part demonstrates that the claimant will definitely be loosing her marriage prospects. As per the evidence, she is required to undergo further treatment from the plastic surgeon for the plastic surgery of the wound. In this regard, although it is not possible to equate money with human sufferings or personal deprivation, an attempt has to be made to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Having regard to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation and while awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation awarded should be substantial and it should not be merely a token. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to award another sum of Rs.75,000/- towards future medical expenses in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable and does not call for interference 15. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:- Compensation awarded under the heads By MACT By this court Amount Enhanced Pain and agony 75,000 1,35,000 60,000 Medical expenses 1,75,000 1,75,000 - Loss of academic year 25,000 1,00,000 75,000 Permanent disability, loss of unhappiness and amenities 50,000 1,00,000 50,000 Future medical expenses 25,000 1,00,000 75,000 Total 3,50,000 6,10,000 2,60,000 Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,60,000/-. For the reasons and findings as stated above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till realisation. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.01.2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.5311/2011, is modified accordingly. Respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the enhanced compensation, along with interest accrued, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimant, on proper identification. Office to draw the decree accordingly.