Compensation in personal injury cases must reflect the severity of injury and loss, considering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 7.10.2005 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 40 of 2005 awarding compensation of Rs.2,25,000 in favour of the injured - claimant.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 21.2.2004 when injured - appellant Devanand was riding his motor cycle Hero Honda and his friend Vipendra Upadhyaya was sitting as pillion rider, the said vehicle was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. CG 07 - C 1854 (in short 'the offending vehicle'), which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. In the said accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries, he remained hospitalised in the government hospital and later on shifted to a private hospital where he remained for about 20 days. In order to save life of the appellant, his right hand was amputated below elbow in the hospital.

3. A claim case was filed by the injured - claimant before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.11,30,000, inter alia, pleading that before the accident he was working as accountant with a private firm, drawing monthly salary of Rs.2,500 and at the time of accident, he was 25 years of age.

4. However, the Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence on record by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.2,25,000 in favour of the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization under the following heads:

In para 19, the Tribunal has though given a categorical finding that the appellant has spent Rs.1,12,412 on his medical treatment, but has not awarded any amount under this head.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very much on the lower side and is required to be increased suitably for the following reasons:
(i) that Claims Tribunal has passed the award in a mechanical manner without proper assessment of loss of future income of the appellant;
(ii) that monthly income of the appellant was Rs.2,500, i.e., Rs.30,000 per annum which was duly proved by him vide pay certificate, Exh. P84, and considering the age of the appellant, i.e., 25 years at the relevant time, after applying the multiplier of 18, the Tribunal should have assessed the compensation;
(iii) that though as per medical certificate, Exh. P91, the appellant has suffered 70 per cent permanent disability, but his loss of earning capacity is 100 per cent because he was working as accountant in a private firm, was a right - handed person and on account of amputation of his right hand, he had to quit his job immediately and, therefore, considering all these things the Tribunal should have awarded a reasonable and just compensation under this head;
(iv) that Claims Tribunal has also committed an illegality in not awarding any amount for expenses incurred in medical treatment as well as for artificial limb;
(v) that under the conventional heads also, i.e., pain and suffering, discomfort and disfigurement, loss of expectation of life and enjoyment, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs suitable enhancement.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned award learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that though he has sympathy with the appellant, but looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the evidence adduced by the parties on record, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as 'insufficient' or 'inadequate', warranting interference by this court. He s