The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for substantial and adequate compensation in bodily injury cases, considering various factors such as loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life.

( 1 ) THE injured person in a motor vehicle accident, being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs. 2,94,100/- with interest at 6% per annum, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE fact that the appellant sustained certain grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 27-3-1997 involving the motor vehicle owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent-Insurance company is not in dispute. The appellant was 28 years of age on the date of the accident and according to him, he was earning monthly income of Rs, 5,000/- out of agriculture/sericulture and also by milk-vending. As per the medical evidence, he sustained 90% of permanent disability to the whole body. In the premise of these facts, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE claim petition was contested by the 2nd respondent-Insurance company by filing written statement. In support of the claim for compensation, the appellant examined himself as P. W. 1 and one Dr. Shanmugam as P. W. 3 and produced two wound certificates marked as exs. P. 7 and P. 8, discharge summary marked as Ex. P. 11 and certain other documents marked as Exs. P. 12 to P. 24. On behalf of respondents, none was examined nor any document was produced.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal taking the permanent disability sustained by the appellant to the whole body at 40%, monthly income at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- and applying multiple 18', awarded Rs. 1,72,800/- towards loss of future income. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 74,300/- towards medical expenses; Rs. 10,000/- towards special food and nutrition; Rs. 5,000/- each towards transportation charges, pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects; Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of earning during treatment period for a period of six months and Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,94,100/- with interest at 6% from the date of claim petition till payment.

( 5 ) WE have heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. Sri Y. R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant would first contend that on the face of evidence ot P. W. 3 that the appellant sustained 90% of permanent disability to the whole body, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the permanent disability at 40% for the purpose of computing loss of future income and loss of income during laid off period. Sri Sadashiva Reddy would also contend that the compensation awarded under the remaining heads, in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record is meagre and very much on lower side. Sri Sadashiva Reddy would further contend that the tribunal is not justified in not awarding compensation towards loss of amenities of life and attendant charges. Sri Sadashiva Reddy would also contend that even the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the trends reflected by the judgments of this Court in recent times.

( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties, the point that arises for decision making is whether the compensation of Rs. 2,94,100/- awarded by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, could be regarded as just and reasonable compensation within the contemplation of the Act and if not, what is just and reasonable compensation?

( 7 ) THE Apex Court and this Court repeatedly held and reiterated that the compensation to be awarded by the Tribunals under any head should not be a token compensation, but, it should be adequate and reasonable to achieve the statutory goal. The Tribunals are well-advised to take into account the facts and circumstances of individual case, the age of the injured or the deceased on the date of the accident, the social and economic status of the deceased or injured, the prospects of the deceased/injured earning more income, if the accident has not taken place.