ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 2nd January, 2012 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 543 of 2005 by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in marginally increasing the award dated 19th November 2004, passed by the M.A.C.T. Jaipur City (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal') in MAC Petition No. 93/04 (122/2000) urging various facts and legal contentions in support of his claim made in this appeal.

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief prayed for in this appeal. The appellant Narendra Singh, on the fateful day of 10.10.1998 at around 8 p.m., was going along with Respondent no. 1 Nishant Sharma, from Vidyut Nagar on scooter bearing Registration no. RJ 14 20M 1120, as a pillion rider, to see the Javier Fair. When they crossed the Sushilpura Culvert, the scooter slipped on account of negligence and careless driving by the Respondent no. 1. The appellant fell down and as a consequence, suffered grievous injuries and finally had to get his right leg amputated after operation conducted on him on 24.10.1998. The appellant had to be operated three more times along with plastic surgery on the amputated leg. On 19.2.1999, the Director of Rehabilitation Centre of Jaipur issued a disability certificate to him at 60% under Rule 2 of Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1975. The appellant filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation and led evidence. Respondent no. 1, the owner and driver of the vehicle, did not respond in spite of sufficient service of notice. Respondent no.2, the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured however, took technical and formal objection though it did not lead evidence. Respondent no. 2 claimed that the appellant has neither lodged an FIR nor filed a complaint in the Criminal Court regarding accident against the scooter driver. Respondent no. 2 further claimed that the scooter driver was holding valid driving license on the date of accident, is not proved by the appellant. Even the intimation of the accident was not given to the Insurance Company which is in violation of the insurance policy.

4. The appellant examined himself as AW-1, an eye-witness - Subhash as AW-2 and Dr. M.P. Goyal as AW-3 and also exhibited documents Exts-1 to 152 in support of his claim. The Respondent no. 2 on the other hand, examined Respondent no. 1 as NAW-1, one Badri Prasad as NAW-2 who recorded the statements of the appellant and respondent no.1 and obtained the rojnamcha report regarding accident and Amar Singh as NAW- 3, who claimed that he was refused to record the report regarding the accident and also exhibited documents Exts. AN-1 to AN-4.

5. On the basis of the pleading of both the parties, the Tribunal framed issues regarding negligence, liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and also the quantum of compensation to be paid by the insurance company, if the claim is proved by the appellant. The Tribunal, after perusing the fact and evidence on record, found Respondent no.1 guilty of rash and negligent driving which caused the accident resulting in grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, on account of which amputation of his right leg was got done. This finding by the Tribunal has neither been challenged by the insured nor by the insurance company by adducing evidence and it has attained finality. We therefore, wish to confine ourselves to examine as to whether the quantum of compensation is adequate or not and the compensation awarded is as per facts, legal evidence on record and settled principles of law laid down by this Court.

6. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant has suffered 60% disability as a result of the accident. His right leg had been amputated upto 3 and = inches below the knee due to infection caused by mul