The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of damages in personal injury cases, considering the principles governing the compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of future income.

( 1 ) IN a bodily injury case, the injured person being dissatisfied with the award of Rs. 1,48,200 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, has preferred this appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE determination of the quantum of compensation by the decision-maker in this case is niggardly and reflects conservatism to the core and an outstanding orthodoxy in legal reasoning. Value of life and limb has not received due consideration at the hands of the decision-maker. Compensation awarded by the M. A. C. T. is very much mean and totally unfair 'in the views of reasonable men in general and of judges in particular', if we can borrow that phrase from Sachs, LJ. , in Jones v. Griffith, (1969)2 All ER 1015. Salmon, LJ. , in Fletcher v. Autocar and Transporters Ltd. , 1969 acj 99 (CA, England), said:". . . the damages awarded should be such that the ordinary sensible man would not instinctively regard them as either mean or extravagant, but would consider them to be sensible and fair. . . "the damages are not consolation money and they are given for the loss already incurred and to be incurred in the future for the harm actually sustained in the accident.

( 3 ) THE appellant sustained certain grievous injuries in an accident occurred on 21. 4. 96 at about 6. 30 p. m. on the footpath of Puttenahalli Bus Stop on bangalore-Doddaballapura Road involving a motor vehicle, i. e. , Ambassador car bearing registration no. MET 7885 owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by the respondent no. 1. The appellant claiming that on the date of accident he was 31 years of age and serving as police constable in the Central reserve Police Force (CRPF) in No. 58 battalion in Bangalore, and due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident he was reduced totally non-functional, filed claim petition under section 166 of the Act before the IX Addl. Small Causes Judge, member, M. A. C. T. , Bangalore (for short, 'the M. A. C. T. ') and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000. The quantum of compensation claimed in the claim petition has been amended from Rs. 10,00,000 to rs. 25,00,000 in this appeal by the appellant by filing LA. No. 2 of 2001 and the same was ordered by us on 10. 2. 2004.

( 4 ) THE claim petition was opposed by the insurance company by filing written statement and other respondents did not contest the petition. In the written statement filed by the insurance company, all material averments made in the claim petition are denied except the fact that the motor vehicle involved in the accident was insured with it. It was also contended in the written statement that the respondent no. 2 was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident on the date of the accident and its driver had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.

( 5 ) IN the premise of the above pleadings, the M. A. C. T. framed the following issues for trial:" (1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 21. 4. 1996 at about 6. 30 p. m. when he was sitting on footpath at Puttenahalli bus Stop on Bangalore-Doddaballapura road, Ambassador car No. MET 7885 came in a high speed rashly and negligently and dashed against him as a result he sustained injuries as stated in the wound certificate? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?"

( 6 ) IN support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as PW 1, Dr. N. Ramesh as PW 2 and Dr. Sarala Mahobia as PW 3 and produced 43 documents marked as exhs. P-1 to P-43. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined nor any document was produced.

( 7 ) THE M. A. C. T. , on appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, held issue no. 1 in favour of appellant-claimant and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,48,200.

( 8 ) WE have heard Mr. A. K. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Sowri Raju, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 insurance company. Mr. A. K. Bhat would co