Virendra Kumar Mathur, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.4.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta whereby compensation of Rs. 27,350/- was awarded to the claimant-appellant and refused total claim of Rs. 9,38,200/-.

2. The appellant became a victim of road accident, which occurred on 17.3.1999 at 10:30 PM when he was purchasing Bidi from shop of Heerji then respondent No. 1 Rajendra came driving Jeep No. RJ 01-C-6332 rashly and negligently and hit the appellant. The appellant fell down, his wrist watch worth Rs. 500/- got damaged and the appellant got injuries in both legs. He is now unable to walk and run properly as he was walking and running prior to the accident. A claim of Rs. 9,38,200/- was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 {herein after 'the Act'}.

3. The appellant claimed compensation with interest by making assertions that at the time of accident, he was 20 years of age and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep by respondent No. 1 Rajendra. Due to the accident, the appellant sustained fracture in both legs and remained in hospital for 21 days. It was also asserted that he spent Rs. 40,000/- by way of medical expenses. After that he was apprehensive of loss of earning and it has affected his livelihood. He has been suffering constant pain and discomfort through out.

4. In the written statement, the respondents denied allegation of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep and pleaded that they were not liable for compensation.

5. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep owned by respondent No. 2. The Tribunal then considered issue of compensation and awarded Rs. 27,350/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till date of deposit, vide judgment and award dated 12.4.2001.

6. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Act and contended that the appellant has suffered 40% disability but a meager amount of Rs. 27,350/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application and claimed that he is entitled for enhancement of the compensation from the date of petition till date of realization.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

8. The personal sufferings of survivors of road accidents or those who are rendered disabled in such accidents are manifold. Sometimes they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases of total or partial disablement, the term 'compensation' used in Section 166 of the Act would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for particular injury or disability caused by an accident. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 DNJ (SC) 20 observed that:

"It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Section 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages."

9. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422, Hon'ble Supreme reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be adequate and justified. The factors which should be kept in min