KHAN ( 1 ) APPELLANT a journalist, was seriously injured in a road accident way back in 1971 and just four months after he was married. He suffered fracture of his left bone, rupture of his ligaments, dislocation of his central hip bone etc. and filed a claim Suit No. 191/71 claiming a compensation of Rs. 1. 21 lakhs. MACT awarded him only 46,240. 00 with 6% p. a. conditional interest by award dated 23. 2. 1976. ( 2 ) BOTH appellant and Insurance Company filed appeals against this award. Appellant raised his compensation claim to Rs. 3. 21 lakhs and company sought setting aside of tribunal award. He supported his claim by a Medical Certificate of three Safdar jung Hospital surgeons certifying that his right leg was shortened by 3/4th of an inch and that he had suffered 58% permanent. physical impairment and loss of physical functions to his left lower extremity. Upon this First Appellate Court raised compensation on certain heads like general damages from Rs. 10,000. 00 to Rs. 40,000. 00 and for medical expenses to Rs. 10,000. 00 and awarded a total compensation of rs. 94,240. 00 with 9% interest vide impugned judgment dated 18. 12. 1989. It, however, dismissed insurance company s appeal (FAO 107/76) which had attributed contributory negligence to appellant. ( 3 ) BOTH sides filed appeals against this judgment. The Appeal filed by company (LPA 7/90) stands already dismissed leaving this Appeal to be decided on its own merit. ( 4 ) APPELLANT s case is that he deserved to be awarded more for the pain and suffering and inconveniences undergone by him which still persisted. His counsel Mr. Malhotra argued that his right leg was shortened by 3/4th of an inch and he had suffered 58% permanent disability which had hampered his professional operations and retarded his career advancement. He had also lost prestigious assignments in the process and also the amenities of life. But for this he could have attained greater heights and reached the zenith of his profession. He had also undergone great pain and suffering in the initial stages of his married life and if his compensation was assessed even at Rs. 15 a day for all this, it would come to few lakhs of rupees. ( 5 ) MR. S. C. SHARDA, L/c for Insurance Company opposed any further enhancement in the matter. He had also undergone great pain and suffering in the initial stages of his married life and if his compensation was assessed even at Rs. 15 a day for all this, it would come to few lakhs of rupees. ( 5 ) MR. S. C. SHARDA, L/c for Insurance Company opposed any further enhancement in the matter. He even attacked the enhancement ordered by FAC which according to him, was the outcome of, Court s wrong reliance on the Medical certificate issued by three Safdar jung Hospital Doctors. He pointed out that this Certificate was not liable to be taken into consideration without the Court deciding appellant s CM 4469/86 which sought to bring it on record. ( 6 ) WE have examined the record of CM 4469/86 and we find that Insurance Company had not disputed the genuineness of this Medical Certificate. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in taking this in regard by the court for purposes of looking into the nature of injury and disability suffered by Appellant. This Certificate was signed by three Doctors of a prestigious Govt. Hospital and showed that Appellant had suffered shortening of his leg and 58% disability. It was surely liable to be taken into account so long as its genuineness was not disputed. We, therefore, find nothing wrong in FAC relying upon this for enhancing the compensation. ( 7 ) WE are conscious of the nature of duties to be discharged by a journalist. His job is onerous and demanding and involves a lot of running about for news hunt. A physical disability was, therefore, bound to hamper his operations. We have no doubt that Appellant would have lost and missed many opportunities and prestigious assignments due to the injury and disability sustained by him. This must have surely retarded his professional growth and advancement. He had also suffered pain and inconveniences in the begining of his married life, depriving him of the enjoyment and amenities of life for which he deserved to-be compensated suitably. ( 8 ) GIVEN regard to all this we feel convinced that appellant was entitled to be awarded more compensation on the general damages head for loss and pain suffered by him. His plight was said to be no better even now and that he was still undergoing treatment. ( 8 ) GIVEN regard to all this we feel convinced that appellant was entitled to be awarded more compensation on the general damages head for loss and pain suffered by him. His plight was said to be no better even now and that he was still undergoing treatment. He would have also invested time and money in pursuing his claim all these years in the legitimate expectation that he would be awarded a just and Fair compensation one day. Therefore, it would be reasonable and appropriate to award him Rs. One lakh more in full and final settlement of his claim of Rs. 3. 21 lakhs. ( 9 ) WE order accordingly to allow this Appeal and direct Respondent Insurance Company to pay him this amount within three months from receipt of this order.