The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just and adequate compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, considering various factors such as pecuniary loss, medical expenses, and interest rates.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 22. 6. 1993, delivered by the motor accidents claims tribunal No. Iv, belgaum in m. v. c. Case nos. 387 and 467 of 1988. Here in the appeal, we are concerned with the award with reference to m. v. c. Case No. 467 of 1988, it may be mentioned that the tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,06,500, payable by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, before the tribunal with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of petition till the date of actual payment.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 14. 2. 1988, at about 10. 30 a. m. , on gokak-belgaum road, an accident occurred involving goods truck bearing registration No. Mwe 1064 and thereby the claimants suffered bodily injuries. According to the case of the claimants, the claimant and his son, who was claimant in m. v. c. Case No. 387 of 1988, were travelling on the motor cycle belonging to the present claimant-appellant, namely, hero honda motor cycle bearing No. Ctb 950, on gokak-belgaum road. At that time, the truck bearing No. Mwe 1064, belonging to the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, driven by the driver, who was respondent No. 1, before the claims tribunal, in rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from opposite direction, it dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant and caused accident resulting in bodily injuries to the present claimant-appellant and his son, who was pillion rider. A criminal case, no doubt, was registered against the driver of the truck for the offences punishable. According to the claimant-appellant (claimant in m. v. c. Case No. 467 of 1988), that as a result of accident, he sustained compound fracture of femur of his right leg and also several injuries on his right shoulder and other parts of his body. He was admitted in the district civil hospital, belgaum, soon after the accident and was operated in the said hospital on 21. 4. 1988, and a nail was inserted in his right leg. According to the claimant, claimant's motor cycle was also damaged considerably and it was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs. 8,000.

( 3 ) THE claimant claimed that by reason of injury sustained by him in the aforesaid accident, he became permanently disabled, and he is not able to earn as much as he was earning prior to the accident, i. e. , Rs. 3,000 per month. The claimant in his claim petition, initially claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000, and subsequently amended his claim and claimed in total a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 from respondent nos. 1 to 3, for injuries sustained by him in the said accident. As the present appeal is only confined to claim in m. v. c. Case No. 467 of 1988, we are not mentioning the case pleaded in m. v. c. Case No. 387 of 1988.

( 4 ) THE respondent nos. 2 and 3, filed their written statement, denying the allegations made in the claim petition. They denied the allegation that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by respondent No. 1. The case of the respondents in the written statement has been that the lorry was actually parked on the road towards its left side, as the cleaner of the said lorry suffered from dysentery and had gone to answer the second call of dysentery. According to the respondents when the lorry was standing and parked on the road, the rider of said motor cycle, namely, the claimant in m. v. c. Case No. 467 of 1988, riding on the said motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side, and lost control of the vehicle, while negotiating the short turn in the ghat Section, and he himself dashed against the stationed lorry, and caused the accident. Thus, the respondents denied the nature of allegations as asserted in the claim petition. The respondents also denied the claim of the claimant, as made. They dented that motor cycle was damaged considerably, so that claimant has spent Rs. 8,000 towards the repair of the motor cycle. The respondents further a