JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of the judgement and award made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Kushinagar, [hereinafter referred to as the “learned tribunal”] in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 265 of 2012 dated 29.10.2016 granting compensation to the injured-claimant by partly allowing his claim and holdings respondent-UPSRTC liable to pay the compensation.

2. Briefly the case of the claimant-appellant before the learned tribunal was that the appellant sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 29.06.2012 and was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of UPSRTC bus bearing Registration No. UP 27/T0235. The learned tribunal partly allowed the claim of the claimant-appellant for compensation on account of disability suffered by him in the accident.

3. The compensation awarded by the learned tribunal in the impugned judgement dated 29.10.2016 under various heads is tabulated hereunder :

4. The appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant who seeks enhancement of compensation.

5. Shri Ajay Shyam Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned tribunal erred while considering the extent of the disability on the appellant's life and awarding paltry and unjust compensation. He also claims entitlement to an attendant and seeks enhancement of the awarded compensation under various heads.

6. Shri Anirudh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the UPSRTC submits that the compensation awarded by the learned tribunal is lawful and just and brooks no interference.

7. The undisputed facts borne out by the evidence and material in the record and the findings of the learned tribunal are these. The accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending UPSRTC bus. The appellant sustained serious injuries in the accident on 29.06.2012 which left him with an amputated left arm. On the date of the accident the age of the claimant-appellant was 43.

8. The disability certificate records the nature of the disability as "amputation of left arm below shoulder found". The disability of 70% of a permanent nature has been opined by the experts in the disability certificate.

9. The appellant is a teacher by profession. The learned tribunal in the impugned award has found that the loss of left arm does not reduce his earning capacity. On this footing the learned tribunal has held that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation on account of loss of earning.

10. The learned tribunal fell into error by neglecting to consider the impact of the disability on the appellant's life. His teaching activities may not be directly hampered by the aforesaid disability. The fact remains that for attending to daily chores of life and other day to day activities, the disability will greatly constrain him. Routine activities of life hitherto accomplished with ease and without thought are made burdensome by the disability. Further, a physical disability of this nature also inflicts a social disadvantage. Our society has not been fully sensitized to the plight of disabled people. Each day is a stubborn reminder of robbed personal choices and relegation to a life of lesser mortals.

11. At the cost of a slight departure but for the benefit of a holistic view, notice may be taken of the fact that the plight of p