The court emphasized that compensation for personal injuries should be higher than in fatal cases, considering the ongoing suffering and the need for the injured party to utilize the compensation for themselves.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in M. C. C. No. 496 of 1999, dated 22. 12. 2000, at the instance of the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

( 2 ) ACCIDENT took place on 15. 9. 1999, at 7. 15 a. m. when the appellant, an employee of the M. P. S. R. T. C. , was hit by minibus no. MP 04-H 7924, driven by Sunil Gupta rashly and negligently. In the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the right leg below knee. Case was registered with the police and claimant shifted to the hospital. During treatment in Gokuldas hospital, Indore, rod was inserted at the site of the fracture. In this accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability to a great extent. Claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 3,40,000 against the respondents jointly and severally.

( 3 ) BEFORE the Claims Tribunal, respondents Sunil Gupta and Baboolal Mathil, driver and owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte, while the insurance company, united India Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the claim and denied liability alleging that the driver did not possess valid driving licence for driving the vehicle, therefore, it was not liable to pay the compensation. Facts stated in the claim petition have been denied and prayer for rejection of the claim has been put up.

( 4 ) AFTER recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that minibus No. MP 04-H 7924, driven rashly and negligently, hit the claimant resulting in injuries. Against claim of Rs. 3,40,000, Rs. 1,12,500 have been awarded, payable by the respondents with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, apart from Rs. 500 as costs of the petition.

( 5 ) MR. Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant, submits that award of compensation is grossly low, therefore, it be enhanced. Particular reference has been made to compensation payable against the injuries suffered by the claimant, expenditure on medicines and mental pain and suffering. In support of this submission, evidence was referred to.

( 6 ) MR. Rajesh Patel with Mr. Sunil kherdiker, on behalf of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , has opposed this appeal. It is submitted that in the light of evidence adduced by the claimant, award of compensation is reasonable and justified. The claimant did not produce tangible evidence in respect of expenditure for treatment and disability is to the extent of 26. 2 per cent. Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, there is no case for enhancement of compensation.

( 7 ) AFTER considering and appreciating the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and going through the evidence recorded in this case, we notice that the claimant was seriously injured. His tibia and fibula were fractured in this accident. He was subjected to surgical operations as many as 5 times. Medical documents demonstrate that he was admitted in the hospital number of times and remained there for a long period. Rod was inserted during operation and extra support instrument was provided since it was not possible for the claimant to use his right leg effectively after operations. These facts were perused by the Tribunal also when the claimant appeared during the course of trial of the case. Due to these injuries, movement of ankle was also affected. It may be true that the doctor who had examined the claimant, has placed the disability at 26. 2 per cent. But the nature of injuries and surgical operations do suggest that the injuries suffered by the claimant were serious in nature. Obviously, he deserves to be compensated reasonably.

( 8 ) IT is well settled that award of compensation in such cases has to be more as compared to fatal cases, since in the former case, the amount of compensation is for suffering of the injuries and the injured has to bear the pain throughout the remaining period of his life and has to utilise the compensation for himself. Therefore, we are of the c