JUDGMENT : R.K. Manisana Singh, J. 1. This appeal arises from the award dated 22.12.1981 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tezpur, in Claim Case No. 28 of 1972. 2. Facts: On account of the negligence of the driver of bus No. ASZ 2797 belonging to Ramesh Chandra Dey (since deceased), the bus collided with a scooter bearing No. ASZ 4710 on 14.2.1971. The scooterist Prabhu Dayal Chohan suffered head injury and mandibular fracture. Prabhu Dayal (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') claimed Rs. 2,35,600/- as compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tezpur. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,89,400/- as compensation. Hence this appeal. 3. At the time of incident, the claimant was aged 23 and was serving under Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta as an Inspector earning Rs. 350/- per month. His retiring age was 58. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,89,400/- under four heads of damage, namely, Rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment; Rs. 50,000/-for pain, sufferings and loss of prospects of life; Rs. 10,000/- for loss of expectation of life; Rs. 20,000/- for loss of enjoyment of life; and Rs. 1,34,400/- for physical disability. However, the award for loss of expectation of life and for the loss of enjoyment of life were included in Rs. 1,34,400/- on the ground that the claimant has not claimed separately under those two heads of damage. Rs. 1,34,400/- was calculated by the Claims Tribunal by adopting the basis of earning salary of Rs. 350/- p.m. on an average, i.e., Rs. 4,200/- per annum, taking into consideration the promotional aspect and higher salary. The Claims Tribunal estimated that the claimant would be in service upto his age of 58, namely, 32 years more from the date of his giving evidence on 18.9.1974. 4. The claimant was in hospital for about 2 months. He was again admitted to hospital from 17.9.1971 to 20.9.1971 for operation on his toe as there was contracture in the toe caused by injury to the brain. Later on, his left side of body developed paralysis due to the brain or head injury. He has not regained the original strength of his left leg. He limps while walking. He sometimes falls down in a fit. However, there is no evidence that the head injury or brain injury has resulted in permanent disability. Later on, his left side of body developed paralysis due to the brain or head injury. He has not regained the original strength of his left leg. He limps while walking. He sometimes falls down in a fit. However, there is no evidence that the head injury or brain injury has resulted in permanent disability. There is also no evidence that he has been declared unfit for future service. The letters, Exh. 7 dated 11.9.1973, Exh. 8 dated 7.12.1973 and Exh. 9 dated 12.2.1974 written by his employer to the claimant show that he was working but his performance was poor. The claimant has explained that the poor performance was due to his physical disability. 5. The damages which are to be awarded for personal injuries are those which so far as money can compensate, (Sic. reimburse the injured). But money cannot equate with human sufferings or personal deprivations; money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. There is no yardstick by which the court can measure the amount to be awarded for pain and sufferings or ensuing disability. Although there is no fixed standard of damages, the courts have been making the assessments over many years. Some of the Judges assess the loss under different heads of damages or through actuarial tables. The heads of damages may be stated as: the bodily injuries sustained; the pain undergone; the effect on the health; the economic loss; actual loss and which is to be incurred; the loss of expectation of life; the mental suffering to be undergone; the physical disabilities, etc. But there may be risk of overlapping if the assessment for each head of damages is separately made and then add them at the end. In fact, it has been done in the present case by the Claims Tribunal, as is seen from his assessment stated above. Some of the Judges adopted the conventional method of assessing the loss by seeking out an appropriate multiplier and multiplicand. However, actuarial tables may supply a means of cross-checking the calculation. We are not expressing our opinion which of the above heads of damages can be sustained legally for the purpose of determination of award u/s 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. However, actuarial tables may supply a means of cross-checking the calculation. We are not expressing our opinion which of the above heads of damages can be sustained legally for the purpose of determination of award u/s 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We however would make an attempt to award sums which must be regarded as giving or which appear to us to be just or reasonable compensation as is provided u/s 110-B. 6. The sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded for the medical expenses and the sum of Rs. 10,000/-for the loss of expectation of life are reasonable. For the pain and sufferings, we are of the view that if we fix the sum at Rs. 20,000/-, it would be reasonable. As regards the pecuniary or economic loss for his physical inability, as already stated, there is no evidence that he has been declared unfit to work in future nor is he no more in service. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, if we assess the pecuniary loss for physical inability at Rs. 35,000/- it would be just and reasonable. In other words, the claimant will be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. No costs.