1. The appellant, who lost his arm while travelling in bus bearing registration No.PB-11E-8725, driven by respondent no.4, owned by respondent no.5 and insured by respondent no.6, has filed this appeal against the Award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, by which he was awarded a total sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, payable by respondents no.1 to 3, who were held liable to pay the same jointly and severally.

Respondent no.1 was the driver of a pick-up van bearing registration No.PB-11-G-4570, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3.

2. The facts of the case, as taken from the Award of the Tribunal, are that on 29.08.1996, at about 5:30 PM, when the appellant was travelling in the aforesaid bus from Patiala to Sirhind, and was sitting on the 3rd seat behind the driver, he had placed his arm on the body of the bus, with the window pane open. One Gurmeet Singh is stated to have been travelling in the same bus and was sitting three seats ahead of him (as stated in the Award). When the bus reached near an electricity grid near village Chaurwala, the tempo/pick-up van aforementioned, came from the opposite side, driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1, which struck against the bus, thereby leading to severance of the appellants' arm from the shoulder.

3. The factum of the accident not having been disputed, the Tribunal exonerated the driver of the bus, i.e. respondent no.4, of all negligence but held the appellant and respondent no.1 to be equally negligent, inasmuch as, it was held that by keeping his arm on the window pane, the appellant had not taken necessary precautions, whereas, at the same time, respondent no.1 had driven his vehicle too close to the bus, thereby endangering passengers in the bus.

Against the amount of compensation that the appellant had claimed, on account of pain and suffering, permanent disablement, medical expenses incurred, etc., the Tribunal, under all heads, found a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- payable as compensation, but having held the appellant equally negligent as respondent no.1, eventually held that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- be paid to the latter, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.

4. Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal had erred on all counts, with regard to the attribution of contributory negligence to the appellant, then with regard to not reimbursing medical expenses to him, then by not taking into account the fact that the career prospects of the appellant were completely marred on account of his arm being amputated, and further, because he lost the use of his right arm, and therefore even lost the ability to lead a normal life and, finally, with regard to the extreme pain and suffering that he suffered.

5. Though, in view of the fact that the original record of the case was unfortunately burnt alongwith other cases of the same type, in the record-room of this Court, the exact compensation sought by the appellant before the Tribunal is not known, however, Mr. Sukhija submitted that this Court can come to a conclusion in terms of the suffering and permanent disablement suffered by the appellant and the loss of prospects of his career in the police force, and award compensation commensurate to his overall suffering.

He submitted that the appellant is a Constable in the Government Railway Police, Punjab and had he not been disabled in the accident, he could have reached far greater heights in his career, whereas now he is doomed to remain a Constable for the rest of his service.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant had to make do with only a very low quality prosthetic arm, as he could not afford the expense of a higher quality prosthetic arm, the same not being reimbursable by the Government.

6. Though the judgment was initially reserved on 28.05.2014, vide order dated 16.09.2014 it was ordered to be reheard on account of the fact that no arguments had been addressed wit