JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J.
1. This is an appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwani in Claim Case No. 131/2001 decided on 10th May, 2002.
2. On account of an accident the appellant suffered personal injury for which he lodged a claim for compensation against the respondents on the ground that respondent No. 2 Rampal caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the passenger bus bearing Registration No. MKN-4786 on 24th December, 2000. The Tribunal found that the respondent No. 2 was responsible for causing accident. At the time of accident the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 3. This finding has not been assailed before us; thus, we affirm the same.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the nature and the extent of various injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident the Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs only which is on lower side. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant sustained serious injuries in right hand, chest, head, left leg as a result, the appellant was required to undergo prolong treatment at Gokuldas Hospital, Indore as indoor patient. He also underwent operation. In support of his contention the appellant has examined Dr. B.L. Khangar P.W. 5. According to Dr. Khangar the appellant had sustained fracture in left femur bone, right wrist for which the appellant was administered First Aid at Badwani and thereafter he was referred to Gokuldas Hospital, Indore for further treatment. From the evidence of Dr. Khangar and the medical certificate Ex. R 100 it is clear that the right hand and left leg remained in plaster. Even after removal of the plaster the appellant had pain in the leg as well as in the wrist. He cannot walk for a long period without getting swelling in the leg. He cannot walk fast without limping. He cannot squat. On examination Dr. Khangar found 1 cm. and 4 cms. wasting in the fore right arm and the left leg respectively. A rod was inserted in the left leg. Doctor also found that there was restriction in the wrist movement as well as in left knee and ankle joint. Doctor also found that the loss of stability in the left leg was to the tune of 27%. As per the medical certificate Ex. P. 100, the doctor found permanent disability in the right arm was to the extent of 16.2% and in the left leg to the extent of 37.7%. The appellant on account of prolonged treatment had fo depend upon a private servant for performing his daily routine. For this he fileoya stamped receipt. The appellant also filed various medical bills and prescriptions to indicate that he has incurred substantial amount of expenses on medicines. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that looking to the young age of the appellant and the permanent disability which he sustained, not only his marriage prospects have diminished but his future career is also jeopardised to a great extent. The appellant aspired to become a Police Inspector but now on account of this permanent disability he may not get the job of his own liking. Thus, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that looking to the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount of compensation should be suitably enhanced so as to make it just and proper.
4. Per contra Mr. Goyal appearing for the respondent Insurance Company supported the award and submitted that looking to the injuries the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Mr. Goyal further submitted that the percentage of the disability as pointed out by Dr. Khangar in Ex. P. 100 is far too greater than the actual percentage of the disability sustained by the appellant. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the disability has to be viewed in context of the functioning of the whole body and not in isolation of each limb. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that the appellant was not required to hire the assistance of any person for performing his daily routine. Thus, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is that no case for enhancement has been made by the appellant.
5. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties at length and after going through the record, we find that the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant is on the lower side which deserves to be suitably enhanced. Instead of going into the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses sustained by the appellant and looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and young age of the appellant, in our considered opinion a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakhs) inclusive of all past and future medical expenses, would be just and proper amount of compensation which the appellant is entitled to recover from the respondents jointly and severally under all heads.
6. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of application till it is actually paid to the appellant. Respondent No. 3 shall bear costs throughout. Counsel fee Rs. 1000/- if certified.