The awarded compensation for motor accident injuries should be reasonable and take into account the extent of disability and future prospects of the injured party.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by Wasti Ram Kohli (herein after described as the appellant) directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Gurgaon dated 25.1.1994. By virtue of the impugned award the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,38,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 8.10.1992 till payment of the same to the appellant.

2. The relevant facts are that appellant is serving in the office of Civil Surgeon, Gurgaon. He joined service in the year 1968. On 29.5.1992 he had gone to Punhana for fetching birth and death record from Police Station, Punhana. He boarded the jeep No. HR-26A-6809 from bus stand Nuh. The driver of the jeep was Ibrahim and the jeep was being driven on the left side at a slow speed. A vehicle No. HNC-1423 was found going ahead of the jeep. In the meantime truck No. HR-26-4727 came from the opposite direction. It was being driven by Idris in a rash and negligent manner. Abruptly the truck struck against the jeep. On account of that the appellant received injuries. He was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sohna, from where he was sent to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon. He remained admitted there till 3.6.1992.

3. As a result of the crushing injuries, the right arm of the appellant was amputated. He suffered disability to the extent of 85%. As a result of the shock, the wife of the appellant died. He had spent Rs. 40,000/- on the treatment and the diet. He suffered mental agony and pain and his future has become bleak. Rs. 5 lacs, were claimed as compensation from the respondents.

4. In the reply filed respondent No. 1 contested the petition and stated that driver of the jeep was responsible for the accident. He admitted that respondents Baldev Raj and Ayub Khan are the owners of the vehicle. Baldev Raj and Ayub Khan did not contest the petition. M/s United India Insurance Company of course submitted the reply and took up the defence that respondent No. 1 Idris did not hold a valid driving licence. On account of that it proceeded to plead that it was not liable to indemnify the insured against any amount of compensation.

5. On basis of these pleadings, the learned tribunal had framed the issues. It was held that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of respondent Idris. Appellant has suffered injuries in the said accident and his right arm had to be amputated. As regards the award of compensation, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,000/- on account of the expenses incurred in the hospital Rs. 5,000/- were awarded for loss of salary of two months and Rs. 1,25,000/- because of the disability. It was noted that appellant even cannot drive a cycle or scooter. On account of that accident he had become crippled. The learned Tribunal further held that no clause of the insurance has been violated. The Tribunal also held that Idris did hold a valid driving licence. With these findings, the impugned award was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

6. At the time of arguments, the sole controversy agitated was about the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. There is no controversy raised in this Court regarding the findings that respondent Idris was holding a valid driving licence and that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of said idris. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant had suffered 85% disability with respect to his right arm which has to be amputated. He suffered bodily and mental injuries. He cannot drive cycle or the scooter and his further promotion has become oblique. It is well known that money compensation is never the real substitute for the calamity that falls on the person. Still it has to be reasonable keeping in view the prospects and all factors pertaining to the sufferings of the concerned person.

7. It has transpired that the appellant is still on the s