The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for substantial and just compensation in bodily injury cases, considering the gravity of the injury, loss of earnings, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life.

S.R. Nayak, J.--A minor male child who sustained certain grievous injuries in an accident that occurred on 8.5.2000 involving a motor vehicle bearing certificate of registration No. KA 25-2380 owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured by the respondent No. 2, resulting in amputation of the left leg below knee, represented by his father-guardian, has preferred this appeal calling in question the correctness and legality of the judgment and award dated 4.10.2001 passed in M.V.C. No. 1575 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III) and II Additional District Judge, Dharwad (for short 'the M.A.C.T.'), seeking more compensation.

2. The fact that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle involved in the accident by its driver is not in controversy. Therefore, there is no need for this court to review the finding recorded by the M.A.C.T. with regard to actionable negligence attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant while contending that the quantum of compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. is unreasonable and inadequate would highlight that having regard to the fact that the left leg of the child had to be amputated below knee on account of the accident, M.A.C.T. is not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the future loss of income. Learned counsel would also contend that the compensation awarded under other various heads is very much on a lower side. The learned counsel further contends that the M.A.C.T. ought to have awarded reasonable compensation for loss of marriage prospects, and that it is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards attendant charges, conveyance charges and towards special food and nourishment, etc. The learned counsel would also contend that interest awarded at 6 per cent is not in accordance with the recent trends reflected by the judgments of the Apex Court and those of this court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for decision is whether sum of Rs.2,00,000/-awarded by the M.A.C.T. as compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record could be regarded as just and reasonable? If not, what shall be the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant-appellant is entitled? Before answering the above point, the principles and norms governing determination of compensation in bodily injury cases may be noted briefly.

5. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages, the amount of damages varies according to gravity of the injury. Deprivation of injuries may bring with it three consequences, namely, (i) loss of earnings and earning capacity, (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself, and (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures of living. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivation, the court has to make an attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Therefore, while considering deprivation, the court should have regard to the gravity and the degree of deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation. While awarding damages in the personal injury cases, the compensation awarded by the court should be substantial and it should not be merely token damages. Lord Morris in his memorable speech in H. West and Son Ltd. Vs. Shephard 1958 65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), pointed out this aspect in the following words:

"Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent aw