C.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Briefly stated facts of this case are that the appellant sustained crush injuries on his leg leading to its amputation above knee in a road accident on 5th November, 1987 with a DTC bus No. DEP 8950 near bus stop on Bhagat Singh Marg, where he was waiting for a bus to go to his home at Satyawali Nagar. The DTC bus came from Madras Hotel side in a high speed and while negotiating left turn on Bhagat Singh Marg, the bus went out of control and struck against left side patri, climbed on it, struck against the petitioner and dragged him to he railing, banging against it and came to stop after uprooting it. Due to injuries sustained by the appellant, his leg above knee was amputated. The appellant had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the injuries and consequences arising out of injuries, disability, loss of income, loss of leave, loss of earning capacity and physical discomfort, mental agony, pain and suffering, loss of future prospects, loss of active social life, etc. He further claimed that he would have to use throughout life private conveyance for going to his office and for social comforts as a trade unionist, which had become part of his life as he was associated with some worker cooperatives and resident associates, etc.

3. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 1,00,000/- for injuries and disability, Rs. 1,08,600/- for future loss and Rs. 5,100/- for conveyance and special diet.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Despite service, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have also not filed any reply in opposition to the present appeal.

5. It is the endeavour of the Courts and Tribunals while assessing compensation to take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles with regard to quantification of compensation. The approach in awarding compensation has to be on a broad base of justice, equity and good conscience and to avoid technicalities in the decision making. The possession of ones own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages.

6. Lord Morris in (1963) All.ER 625 observed that bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles the plaintiff to the damage and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. The Court emphasised that in personal injury cases, the Court should award substantial damages and not token amount. This aspect was highlighted in the following words:

Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the Judges and Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparative injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.

7. Lord Denning in Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All.ER 563, laid down some basic principles while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury:

Firstly, assessability: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases, otherwise, there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able of predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to Court, a thing very much to the public good.

8. In cases of personal injuries or fatal accident the original position cannot be restored. The law must endeavour to give a fair equivalence in money so far as money can be an equivalent and so make good the damage. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the Court should award to injured person such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. However, no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human frame. It is difficult to compensate by way of money for pain and for physical consequences but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment. There are many losses where there cannot be an easy way of expressing its equivalent in terms of money. Nevertheless a valuation in terms of money must be made in a fair manner although accuracy and certainty are frequently unobtainable. There are difficulties and uncertainties in assessing damages in personal injury cases and this fact should not preclude an assessment as best as can in the circumstances be made. The Court is constantly required to form an estimate of changes and risks which cannot be determined with precision in personal injury cases.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., I (1995) ACC 281 (SC)=AIR 1995 SC 755 [LQ/SC/1995/17] , has laid down as under :

Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant : (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include; (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

10. In this case, the Supreme Court has awarded non-pecuniary special damages of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others, III (2002) ACC 766 (SC)=VII (2002) SLT 101=AIR 2003 SC 674 [LQ/SC/2002/1279] , observed that under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is it should be `just compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence.

12. A Single Bench of the Rajasthan High after taken into account the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra), and the fact that the one leg of the claimant-appellant was amputated and there was 55 per cent permanent disablement, held that claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of non-pecuniary special damages. In that case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of non-pecuniary damages for the loss of amenities of life and mental agony, pain and suffering. In an another case entitled Bhagwan Singh Meena v. Jai Kishan Tiwari and Others, 1999 ACJ 1200 [LQ/RajHC/1999/7] , the Rajasthan High Court held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of non-pecuniary special damages. In that case also one leg of the claimant was amputated. In the present case, right leg of the appellant above knee was amputated and there was 85 per cent permanent disablement. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of pain, shock and suffering, Rs. 1,00,000/- for injuries, disability, Rs. 1,08,600/- for future loss and Rs. 5,100/- for conveyance and special diet. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,38,700/-.

13. In the premises of the above noticed well settled principles, norms and rules governing assessment of damages in personal injury cases, the amount awarded by the Tribunal for pain and sufferings and injuries and disability is inadequate. The petitioner sustained injuries in the lower limb which were amputated. The disability sustained by the appellant was 85%, as a result of the amputation and the appellant has been rendered a cripple. Even though physical disability is not 100%, the functional disability will have to be treated as total. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs. 1,00,000/- for injuries and disability.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The total compensation now payable to the appellant is Rs. 3,88,700/- as against Rs. 2,38,700/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. To this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified. The other part, terms and conditions of the award are maintained. The respondents are directed to make the payment of the compensation to the claimant-appellant within a period of three months.