JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby the compensation awarded to the appellant by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4 Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC No. 860/2004 was enhanced by a paltry sum of Rs. 31,000/-

2. The appellant became a victim of road accident which occurred on 8.9.2003 when he was hit from behind by bus bearing No. KA-04-A-3784 belonging to respondent No. 2. As a result of accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on different parts of the body. On the same day, he was admitted in Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Banglore. He was discharged on 22.9.2003.

3. In the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest by making the following assertions: (i) that at the time of accident, his age was 24 years; (ii) that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus; (iii)that due to the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries and remained in the hospital and that his treatment was still continuing; (iv)that he had spent Rs.5,000/- by way of medical expenses; (v)that he was apprehensive of becoming disabled and that the same would result in loss of earning and affect his livelihood; and (vi)that he would have to suffer constant pain and discomfort throughout his life.

4. In their written statements respondent Nos. 1 & 2 denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the bus and pleaded that they were not liable to pay compensation.

5. After considering evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by respondent No. 2. The Tribunal then considered the issue of compensation, referred to statement made by the appellant in the form of affidavit as also the statement of Dr. S. Ranjanna, Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, who was examined as PW-2 and held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of application till the date of deposit.

6. Dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the 3 appellant filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court did notice that as per PW-2, the appellant had suffered 26% disability in the right lower limb, 25% urethral injury and 38% disability to the whole body but granted a meager enhancement of Rs.31,000/- and declared that appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.76,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

7. We have heard Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents to assist the Court.

8. The personal sufferings of the survivors of the road accidents and those who are disabled in such accidents are manifold. Some time 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.

9. 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