Car Accident: Why the law is set up in a way that the victim gets punished?

I had a motor vehicle accident in September 2008 (No fault of my own)
I am still in need of treatment and have been put off work by my employer due to my physical condition.
Since the accident, I have lost all my furniture, cars and my debts are at this moment sitting at around £35 000.
My income was around the same amount per annum after tax.
I have received about £ 15 000 in interim payments over a period of two years.
I spoke to my solicitor and a Barrister yesterday and I was told I could be looking at around £ 50 000 as a settlement. I asked them how I get back on my feet even if I made a full recovery as, this would leave me with nothing and yet I lost so much and am still being penalised in penalties as we speak. I was told that I cannot claim for losses as it is like "Taking from Peter to pay Paul"
I have many more grievances but I don't think I will be able to place them all on here.
I am just wondering why the law is set up in a way that the victim gets punished.

[AFFA]

I wish to inform you that if there has been a car accident then all the direct damages which are resulting from car accident can be claimed. In this regard the direct damages are those damages which a person can foresee that in an accident an ordinary person will have. However indirect losses or extraordinary losses cannot be taken into consideration because the person who has done accident cannot be made liable for losses which an ordinary person cannot foresee. The law is meant to provide equal treatment to both the parties.

AFF

Originally Posted by AFFA I wish to inform you that if there has been a car accident then all the direct damages which are resulting from car accident can be claimed. In this regard the direct damages are those damages which a person can foresee that in an accident an ordinary person will have. However indirect losses or extraordinary losses cannot be taken into consideration because the person who has done accident cannot be made liable for losses which an ordinary person cannot foresee. The law is meant to provide equal treatment to both the parties. AFF

Thank you for your reply. So basicaly, what you are saying that the accident I have had even though has caused me to lose my home, cars, furniture and many other things including increased bills and penalties. Get struck off of specialist treatment due to me being unable to attend them due to the fact that I have not had an income since the accident as such. Caused me to have other complications due to the amount of time I have been on medications and being bed ridden for around 23 hours a day. Forced my family of my wife, 3 sons, dog and myself to share a 2 bedroom place with my in-laws. All this is not the fault of the defendent? I would have thought that the cause created by the defendent has led to the effects that I am going through. I am not a smart man but I feel there is an injustice here.

Thank you again for your feed back. I deeply appreciate this.

[QUOTE=jamiestarr;201697] Sorry to sound thick but can you please explain this to me in layman terms. The loses that I am or have incured, would these be regarded as forseeable or non forseeable?