In cases of severe disability resulting from a road accident, the compensation awarded should be adequate to cover the victim's future medical expenses and provide for their maintenance and well-being.

1. - The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 19.12.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC No. 1212/2000.

2. Brief facts noticed are that on 12.3.2000 at about 12:30 PM when the appellant, who is aged about 30 years, was said to be going from his factory on his motorcycle to mandi, at that time one more person was with him. When he reached near shivalay, adjacent to the petrol pump, one tractor in which lorry was also attached, bearing no. RJ 05 1R 0369, came in high speed, in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle where the appellant was sitting and consequent to which he suffered several injuries on his head, right leg and on the back, and it was claimed that on account of the grievous injuries suffered, he got totally disabled and the Medical Board has taken permanent physical disability to be 100%. The Tribunal taking into consideration all the facts and material on record allowed Rs. 10,52,000/-, which is assailed herein.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the Tribunal has accepted that there was 100% permanent physical disability and it has been expressed by the Medical Board of S.M.S. Hospital that the appellant received injury in "thoracic vertebra-12 (T-12 and D-12), compression fraction and dislocation thereof, and thoracic vertebra-11", and consequent thereto there is complete "paraplegia" and the appellant is unable to even get up on his own and move even sides during sleep, and has been rendered totally bedridden. Consequent thereto, while he was working in a factory and was earning Rs. 8,000/-, but his life has come to a standstill and he is unable to do anything in life. He further contended that Dr. M.R. Goyal of S.M.S. Hospital, came in the witness-box and even he has opined that the appellant would be unable to lead his normal life and will require an attendant for day to day needs and all purposes. He further contended that though his earning was shown to be Rs. 8000/-, but the income was adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 3000/- only. He further contended that the other amounts allowed on non-pecuniary heads, is meager and very low, particularly the fact that when the doctor himself has opined that a dependant would be required for life, the amount allowed at Rs. 1000/- adding the same in his monthly income, is insufficient and quite low. He further contended that other amount for pains and suffering at Rs. 1,00,000/- is grossly low, as his pains and suffering cannot be assessed in terms of money. He contended that the amount allowed on account of loss of amenities and other factors need to be considered particularly in such a case where he has lost everything and being aged about 30 years had full life to go. Learned counsel further contended that though he has wife and four children, but because of his injury, the entire family has suffered and, therefore, the compensation is required to be enhanced, taking into consideration the judgments rendered in the case of Kavita v. Deepak & Others 2012 ACJ 2061 , and also in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Others 1995 ACJ 366 , where huge amount of claim was allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the incident is of the year 2000, therefore, claim allowed of more than Rs. 10,50,000/-, cannot be said to be low or meager, particularly when the Tribunal has taken into consideration the various factors, and the said amount is even otherwise quite excessive. He further contended that the facts in the case of Kavita v. Deepak (supra) are distinguishable, as in that case it was proved on record that appellant had taken treatment in various hospitals of Indore, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and in other prominent hospitals incurring huge amount and after visiting more than ten doctors. Therefore, he contended that the judgments are distinguishable on facts.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel f