ORDER

1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation in a personal-injury action arises out of and is directed against the judgment and award dated 19-11-1986 in FAO 222 of 1986 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing in limine the first appeal for enhancement preferred by the appellant, the injured claimant, against the award dated 30-7-1986, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs 45,000 for the injuries suffered in an automobile accident resulting, amongst other things, in the amputation of appellants left leg above the knee.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents, though served, have chosen to remain unrepresented. Special leave granted.

3. Appellant, Jai Bhagwan Sharma, suffered serious injuries in a road accident that occurred at 10.45 a.m. on 2-1-1981 in Delhi. The appellant was a pillion-rider on a two wheeler DHW 1330 driven by one Azad Singh. The vehicle was proceeding from Saket to Khanpur Petrol Pump via M.B. Road. At a place called Sainik Camp, Mehrauli, the Bus DEP 2511 driven by Lachman Singh, Respondent 1, and owned by Respondent 3, which was coming from the opposite direction collided against the two wheeler. Azad Singh, the driver of the two wheeler, received fatal injuries. Appellant suffered, amongst others, a crush injury on his left leg. Appellant was removed to the Safdarjung Hospital. On 6-1-1981 appellants left leg had to be amputated above the knee.

4. Appellant filed a claim for compensation before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal against the driver, the owner and the insurer, M/s Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. seeking a compensation of Rs 2 lakhs. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, recorded a finding that the accident was the result of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. As this appeal is for enhancement of compensation by the injured claimant, the finding of the Tribunal on this question assumes finality.

5. As to the quantum of compensation the Tribunal, on some calculations of its own, determined and awarded a sum of Rs 45,000 to be paid with interest @12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till payment.

6. The appellant, dissatisfied with the size of the award, filed a first appeal before the High Court which, as aforesaid, has come to be dismissed in limine.

7. Shri C.V. Rappai, learned counsel for the appellant, urges that having regard to the young age of the injured appellant, the severity of the injury, the consequential degree of permanent disablement and incapacitation, loss of earning capacity, shortened expectancy of life and the loss of amenities of life, the appellant is clearly undercompensated. Learned counsel submitted that in a personal injury action the impairment of the integrity of the person is, in itself, a head of compensation. He submitted that the award of Rs 20,000 for the injury and for pain and suffering does not recognise and take into account the permanent impairment of the integrity of the body by the amputation of a major limb. In addition, it was submitted, appropriate awards for loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, shortened expectation of life, loss of amenities of life should also have been made. Learned counsel submitted that if that part of the award providing for actual medical expenses was deleted, the rest of the award aggregates only to Rs 35,000 which the learned counsel characterised as niggardly having regard to the nature and gravity of the injuries.

8. The appellant was 22 years of age at the time of the accident. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, his left leg had to be amputated above the knee leaving him permanently impaired. Both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses resulting from the injury are to be compensated. Assessment of damages is subject to rules of remoteness and mitigation. Such difficulties as arise in the task of quantification in terms of money of non-pecuniary losses are largely the result of