The court held that the compensation awarded by the lower court was inadequate and that the appellant was entitled to compensation for her injuries, permanent disability, and loss of enjoyment in life.

1. In this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act; 1939, the appellatnt makes a grouse of the inadequacy of the award of Rupees 10,010, made in her favour by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh under Section 110-B of the Act.

2. Rattanjit Kaur, appellant an unmarried young girl of 26 years of age was employed as a clerk in the Office of the Punjab School Education Board and was drawing Rs. 418.10 P. as her total emoluments on May 30, 1977 the date of accident. She was riding on the pillion seat of the Scooter No. PN3-8909 on her way to her office in Sector 17, Chandigarh. The scooter was being driven by Shri C.D. Kalra. When the scooter reached the crossing of the road near K.C. Cinema, bus No. HRA-9216, driven by Lakhan Pal driver banged into it and as per the evidence on record, the scooter was dragged to a distance of 20 to 25 paces from the place of the impact. As a result of this accident the appellant suffered the following injuries:-

1. Fracture of both bones of the right leg with multiple abrasions.

2. Colle s fracture of the right forearm with multiple abrasions on the forearm right side.

3. Abrasion on the left elbow 3/4" diametre.

4. Contusion on the left forearm on the ulter border on the middle 1/5th size 1½" x 1".

5. Two abrasions on the lateral side of ring finger of the fight hand. Size of each ½" x ½".

6. Swelling of the left foot. It was an expected fracture of metacarpal and x-ray was advised.

2-A. As a result of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal was called upon to decide the following two issues :-

1. Whether the applicant was injured as a result of the rash and negligent driving of bus No. HRA-9216 by the respondent No. 3?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation is the applicant entitled and from which of the respondents?

3. Under issue No. 1 it was held that there was overwhelming evidence on record to show that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of Lakhan Pal driver. This finding is no more the subject-matter of controversy in this appeal. The sole question that has been raised and requires determination is the quantum of compensation.

4. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable to the appellant under various heads in the following manners:

1. Pain, suffering as a result of fractures of 3 limbs including that of five

operations and stay in plaster (about 6-¯ months in bed) and loss of

happy life. - Rs. 5,000/-

2. Extra diet (as doctor admits he advised it) to regain health (and she was not

normal even when appearing in the witness box 2 years after). - Rs. 850/-

3. Loss pay - Rs. 360/-

4. Physical disfigurement of and disablement and loss of prospects

of marriage. - Rs. 2,000/-

5. Attendance charges (6-¯ months in bed) unreimbursed medical expenses

(treatment continued even after 29-8-1977). - Rs. 1,000/-

6. Transport Charges following the accident. - Rs. 800/-

Total - Rs. 10,010/-

5 According to the learned counsel for the appellant the award under appeal is not only miserly but is unfair to the appellant. As per the evidence of Dr. Kuldip Singh (P. W. 2) the appellant suffered the following major injuries:-

1. Fracture of both bones of right leg with multiple abrasions.

2. Fracture of right forearm with multiple abrasions.

3. Fracture of the left metacarpal.

6. According to the doctor the appellant underwent four operations during her stay in the hospital which lasted from May 30, 1977 to June 6, 1977 in the first instance and from June 26, 1977 to August 29, 1977 later. A minor operation for the extraction of a screw from one of the bones was yet to be conducted when he appeared to give his statement in Court. Rattanjit Kaur as PW6, not only reiterated the injuries suffered by her, as described in the earlier part of the judgment, but she also stated that she had to remain in bed from the date of accident to the date of her resuming, the duty on December 8, 1977. Even up to t