As per case facts, the Petitioner, a lorry driver, was injured in a motor accident involving a container lorry. He sustained severe leg fractures and multiple grievous injuries, leading to ... multiple surgeries and prolonged treatment. A criminal case was registered against the container lorry driver. The Tribunal found the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the first Respondent's driver and awarded compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal for enhancement of compensation, particularly challenging the notionally fixed income and the amount for loss of marriage prospects. The second Respondent (Insurance Company) preferred an appeal to set aside the award, contending contributory negligence and disputing medical bills. The question arose whether the accident was solely due to the other driver's negligence, what the Petitioner's correct notional income should be, whether the medical bills were legitimate, and if additional compensation for loss of amenities was justified given a high functional disability. Finally, the High Court confirmed the accident was solely due to the first Respondent's driver's negligence. It re-fixed the Petitioner's notional income higher, accepted all medical bills, found a functional disability of one hundred percent, and enhanced the overall compensation while removing the award for loss of amenities to avoid duplication.