The court established that serious disability and impact on employment opportunities can justify an increased compensation amount and the award of interest in a motor accident case.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a yongman of 28 years of age, suffered grievous injuries in the motor accident which occurred on 19 March, 1977. He is a graduate and got proficiency in playing sitar. At the time of accident he was employed with the Doordarshan and while on duty when he was coming back from Jaipur the unforunate accident occurred. He was in the car which was hit by the truck driven by the first respondent. The second respondent Is the owner of the truck and third respondent is the insurer. The petition was filed on 17 September, 1977. The petitioner was appearing in LL. B. Examination but could not complete the same because of the injury which he suffered. He said but for this injury he would have qualified the LL. B. Examination and would have joined his father, a parctising advocate in Charkhi, Dadri in District Rohtak.

( 2 ) ON the pleadings of the parties various issues were framed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, who by his judgment dated 21 November 1985 awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000. 00 to the petitioner. He further directed that this amount be paid by the insurer-respondent No. 3 within one month failing which the insurer was liable to pay interest at the rate of l2/, per annum from the date of the order. The Tribunal did not award any interest to the petitioner and the reason why it was not 80 granted as discussed in issue No. 7 claiming the relief. The Tribunal observed that it was the petitioner himself who had on many occasions taken adjournments in the matter which resulted in delay in disposal of the case. He also recorded that delay also took place on account of some dispute regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal who was earlier presiding over the Court. Then there was no Presiding Officer for some time. All these reasons made the learned Tribunal to decline to award any interest to the petitioner. I do not think the Tribunal was fully correct in his aproach. It is not that it was always the petitioner who had sought adjournments. I find some adjournments had been granted on account of the respondents as well. Moreover, I feel in sush proceedings principles of Code of Civil Procedure should be made applicable though the provisions of the Code are not in term applicable. If the petitioner was asking for adjournments unnecessarily the Tribunal would have imposed cost or at least he should have been put on guard that any unnecessary adjournments will result in denial of award of interest to him. In the cricumstances of the present case, I find the petitioner should have been allowed interest.

( 3 ) THE ultimate result of injury suffered by the petitioner is that bis one leg is shortened by 3/4 inches. This to my mind is quite a serious disability, The petitioner has described in detail the agony he underwent on account of the accident and the various treatments he got from places and then the operation he had to undergo. One thing is certain that because of this injury the petitioner now remains disqualified in getting various employed employments. In this view of the matter t feel that the award of Ra. 45,000. 00 as compensation is on the lower side. At the time when the petitioner met with this accident he was getting a total salary of Rs. 600. 00 per inoath apart from some other perks. That was, however, the beginning of his career. I need not discuss whole of the evidence as I find that the accident and the injury suffered by the petitioner are not being disputed For all these reasons I am of the opinion that award of Rs. I lakh in favour of the petitioner would serve the ends of justice. The liability of the insurer who is respondent No. 3 is limited, however to Rs. 50,000. 00. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. I lakh from the date of institution of the petition till payment, the rate of Interest being 6/o per annum. I have awarded interest at this rate because I feel it is an old case. Mr. Paul, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company,