The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for fair and adequate compensation for personal injuries, emphasizing the principles of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of earnings, and medical expenses.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arising under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, is by consent of learned counsel on both sides taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgement.

( 2 ) THE appeal is directed against the award dt. 26-12-1984 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga in M. V. C. No. 86 of 1983 on its file. The Tribunal awarded to the claimant-appellant a sum of Rs. 6000/- as compensation for the injuries the claimant sustained at a mishap in which he was involved on the 24th April, 1983 at a place called Kembhavi, some distance from the city of Gulbarga. The appellant feels aggrieved by this award under appeal, complains of its stymied nature and seeks enhancement.

( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel on either side, we feel that the award in question suffers from extreme conservatism not justified in the facts and circumstances, besides it also appears to have been arrived without conforming to well settled parameters to which this court has on a number of occasions called attention to. It is a matter of some regret that despite the consistent endeavours made by this court in directing these Claims Tribunals to adopt appropriate norms evolved, more or less on a scientific basis, there still appears to be a discernible disinclination to follow such well tracked moorings in preference to producing awards dependent largely on wayward institution and hazardous guess-work.

( 4 ) THE award under appeal suffers largely from these deficiencies. Therefore, it is, we have been compelled to interfere with it in order to put it on proper rails. It would in this connection be necessary to state a few facts necessary in the disposal of this appeal. The appellant, on the date of the accident was a young man of 24 years. He is stated to be an agriculturist, who was also running a furniture and radio shop at the village of Kembhavi. On that ill-fated day he was riding a motor bicycle and enroute he ran into a tractor-trailor belonging to the 1st and the 2nd respondents herein, as a result of which a collision occurred and in consequence thereof the claimant was badly injured. He suffered a number of fractures involving major bones of both arms both legs for mending of which he had to stay at the Gulbarga Government Hospital for 17 days receiving the attention of an Orthopedic surgeon, who was later examined before the Tribunal being PW 1 Dr. Somashekhar. Even after discharge it transpires, from proved facts, that for a period of three months he had to convalesce in bed.

( 5 ) AMONGST the several hardships he lists as a fall-out from this accident is the winding up of his furniture and radio shop business and the diminishing returns from his agricultural holdings. He further states that inspite of treatment which cost over eleven thousand rupees, he was still not restored to normalcy and suffered a nagging pain even now. Therefore, he asked for compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that if actionable negligence is held, proved, the liability to compensate would be of the Insurer, Respondent-3 herein. Mr. K. Suryanarayana Rao, who appears for the Insurer in this court does not dispute the existence of insurance coverage to the offending vehicle and does not further dispute liability to satisfy the award now under review or any enhancement which this court may make herein.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailor by its driver and as a result of such ineptitude the claimant had suffered physically. In other words it held actionable-negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor-trailor was established. That finding, not having been appealed by anybody, stays and consequently the claimant's entitlement to compensation is established. The question is one of appropriate quantification. Rs. 6,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. After going through the some what prolix order under appe