JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by Yashpal Gaur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He met with an accident on 27.7.1987. He is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation allowed to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). He is seeking enhancement. 2. The facts are not in dispute. So far as the manner in which the accident took place is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been assailed before us. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 3. The claimant is a government servant. He is working as lecturer in Government Ploytechnic College, Gwalior. At the time of accident he was 54 years old. He met with an accident on 27.7.1987 at about 5.30 p.m. He was hit by an Ambassador car No. MBW 1140. He was taken to a Nursing Home where first aid was administered to him. The doctor who attended him found that there was fracture of patela of both sides. He, advised further operation. He, however, temporarily fixed and fitted cross-wires. Circular wiring of both patela was resorted to. He also applied slab for the duration till medical aid could become available to the claimant. 4. On 28.7.1987, the claimant was admitted in Orthopaedic Ward of J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. He was operated on 3.8.1987. Patela of right knee was totally removed while that of left knee was removed in part. The fractured portion was put in plaster. The claimant remained in the hospital till 18.8.1987. The plaster was removed on 19.8.1987. After the removal of the plaster, the claimant was advised to take physiotherapy treatment and for this purpose he was admitted in Birla Institute of Medical Research, Gwalior. The claimant remained in this Institute initially from 4.10.1987 to 9.10.1987. He was again admitted in this Institute from 9.11.1987 to 28.11.1987. During all this period, that is from the date of accident till he was discharged from the Birla Institute of Medical Research, Gwalior, the claimant was on leave. 5. The claimant claimed compensation under the following heads: (i) Loss due to removing Rs. kneecap of right knee and partly removing the same resulting in permanent disability. .. 2,00,000/- (ii) For mental agony and physical pain .. 2,00,000/- (iii) Expenses on medicines, special diet and conveyance, etc. 5. The claimant claimed compensation under the following heads: (i) Loss due to removing Rs. kneecap of right knee and partly removing the same resulting in permanent disability. .. 2,00,000/- (ii) For mental agony and physical pain .. 2,00,000/- (iii) Expenses on medicines, special diet and conveyance, etc. 20,000/- (iv) Loss of leave availed on account of the said accident. 12,000/- (v) Loss of not taking part-time classes 40,500/- (vi) Autorickshaw fare 22,500/- ---------------- Total: Rs. 4,95,000/- ---------------- 6. After the matter was put to trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ambassador car No. MBW 1140. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that as a result of the said accident, the claimant had sustained a permanent disability to the extent of 45 per cent. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would be just and fair to compensate the claimant by awarding him a total amount of Rs. 53,000/-. This was divided into four heads. These are as under: (i) Pain, suffering, past, Rs. future and present and disability of 45 per cent .. 40,000/- (ii) Expenses of medicines .. 2,000/- (iii) Special diet .. 1,000/- (iv) Loss of conveyance, past and future .. 10,000/- ---------------- Total Rs. 53,000/- ---------------- 7. The claimant has claimed enhancement of compensation under all heads. 8. In the matter of determination of compensation, various guidelines have been indicated in various judicial precedents. There is unanimity in judicial opinion that the award by which a claimant is compensated should be moderate, just and fair. It should not be oppressive to the respondents. It should again be not punitive, exemplary or extravagant. A few judicial decisions in this regard may be noticed. 9. In Thomas v. British Railways Board 1977 ACJ 222 (CA, England), Scarman, LJ., observed: ...the greatest element of damages in a case such as this is the pain, the suffering and the loss of the ordinary pleasures and convenience associated with healthy and mobile limbs. All that the court can do is to award such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to acquire some material possessions or to develop a life-style which will offset to some extent her terrible disability. 10. All that the court can do is to award such a sum as will enable the plaintiff to acquire some material possessions or to develop a life-style which will offset to some extent her terrible disability. 10. In Birkett v. Hayes 1983 ACJ 697 (CA, England), the position of law was summarised as under: There is nothing to guide us but the feeling of what is fair.. .The Judge has to award compensation for the past and also for the future pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The future that lies ahead, beyond the date of trial is often of more consequence than the past. The Judge awards a lump sum at the date of trial to cover all. 11. In H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), it was observed by Lord Morris: Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. 12. In Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, while dealing with the- question of awarding compensation in personal injury case, the court laid down three basic principles: First, assessability. In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or the 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. Second, 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. Third, predictability. The parties should be able to 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. 13. In Waran v. King (1963) 3 All ER 521, it was observed: With regard to moderation in awarding damages, the jury had not been directed that it was their duty to be moderate in awarding damages for personal injuries nor that they should consider fairness to the defendants in the amount of their award as well as fairness to the injured person. 14. 14. InMckay v. Board of Govan School 1968 ACJ 342, (CA, Canada), it was observed: Sympathy for the claimant should not be allowed to affect the calculation of damages. The award should neither be punitive, exemplary nor extravagant and oppressive. 15. The Supreme Court in C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair 1970 ACJ 110 (SC), observed: In assessing damages, the court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable. 16. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushila Pandey v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1983 ACJ 525 (Allahabad), summarised the principles which may be made applicable to cases where a claimant has suffered a personal injury. Para 8 of the judgment is relevant and may be noticed: Damages which are awarded in the form of compensation to a claimant are of two kinds; pecuniary, which are also known as special damages and non-pecuniary, which are classified as general damages. Pecuniary damages are generally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money. Non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculation. Pecuniary damages generally include four sub-heads: (i) expenses incurred by the claimant in respect of injury which may include medical expenses, special diet, cost of nursing or attendant; (ii) loss of earning or profit up to the date of trial, (iii) loss of earning capacity, which may include incapability to earn in future years and also incapability in the labour market, loss of earning on account of termination of service or discontinuance of any trade, business or profession; and (iv) other material loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured or the claimant for the rest of life. Non-pecuniary loss (general damages) includes a number of elements. Non-pecuniary loss (general damages) includes a number of elements. Generally these include four sub-heads: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered by the claimant or likely to suffer in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, e.g., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run, sit or loss of marriage prospects, sexual intercourse and loss of other amenities in life (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, e.g., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; and (iv) the inconvenience, hardship, discomfiture, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 17. In State of Punjab v. Lt. J.P.S. Kapur 1973 ACJ 216 (P&H), a young man was employed as lieutenant in the Army. He was aged 22 years. He received injuries causing fracture of leg. The award of Rs. 22,000/- for loss of earning by way of salary and Rs. 4,000/- for pain and suffering was held to be fair and reasonable. 18. In Bliarat Premjibhai v. Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad 1979 ACJ 264 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 27,000/- when a young boy of 15 years sustained foot injury causing 25 per cent disability. 19. In Rattanjit Kaur v. State of Haryana 1981 ACJ 416 (P&H), a girl of 26 years was employed as a clerk. She was unmarried. She sustained leg injuries. Both bones of one leg and right arm were fractured. She underwent five operations. She could not ride a bicycle. The Punjab & Haryana High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of earnings; Rs. 25,000/- for physical disfiguration and for loss of prospects of marriage Rs. 20,000/- were awarded. For permanent loss of enjoyment and amenities Rs. 10,000/- was fixed. Rs. 10,000/- was allowed for conveyance as rickshaw charges. 20. There is another method of determining compensation. Reference has been made to this in Mitchell v. Mullholand (1972) 1 QB 65. This may be noticed thus: A satisfactory method of determining compensation is by arriving at a multiplicand and a multiplier. Adjustment in these will have to be made, owing to a variety of factors, viz., the probability of future increase or decrease in earnings, contingencies of life and incidence of inflation and taxation. 21. This may be noticed thus: A satisfactory method of determining compensation is by arriving at a multiplicand and a multiplier. Adjustment in these will have to be made, owing to a variety of factors, viz., the probability of future increase or decrease in earnings, contingencies of life and incidence of inflation and taxation. 21. As to how this method of multiplicand and multiplier has to be worked out was explained by the High Court of Kerala in case of M.D. Chacko v. N. Sreedharan 1990 ACJ 439 (Kerala). Para 7 is relevant. It reads: To easily understand the above principle we shall give an illustration: If the earnings of the claimant per month after all deductions is 'A' then that should be multiplied by 12 to get at the annual earnings. Thus, 'A' x 12 will be the annual earnings. This will be the annual earnings in the case of total disablement. In case of partial disablement the annual earnings will be 'A' x 12 = the annual earnings x the percentage of permanent disability by 100. In other words, if the monthly earnings is Rs. 2,000/- and the permanent disability is 12 per cent, the multiplicand will be Rs. 2,000/- x 12 x 12/100 = Rs. 2,880/-. This Rs. 2,880/- will be the multiplicand. This multiplicand must be multiplied by the multiplier. 22. Coming to the facts of this case, it may be seen that the claimant was 54 years of age at the time of the accident. It has come in his evidence that he expected to be continued in government service till the age of 60 years. It has also come in evidence that on account of removal of patela from his right leg and partial removal of patela from the left leg, he cannot stand for long. He stated that earlier he used to address the classes while standing, now it is not possible for him to do so. He has also stated in his evidence that he has to make use of an auto-rickshaw as it is not possible for him to use the bicycle, the mode of conveyance he was using earlier. He has also stated in his evidence that he was under treatment right from 3.8.1987, when the accident took place, to 29.11.1987. He was on leave during this period. He has also stated in his evidence that he was under treatment right from 3.8.1987, when the accident took place, to 29.11.1987. He was on leave during this period. The Tribunal has refused to compensate the claimant so far as this period of absence is concerned. This is primarily on the ground that during this period he was paid his salary by the Government. This approach of the Tribunal is not justified. As a matter of fact, this Court in a case Anoop Singh v. Inder Singh 1987 ACJ 84 (MP), compensated the claimant for loss of leave. We, accordingly, assess compensation for this item as claimed by the claimant, i.e., at Rs. 12,000/-. 23. So far as the expenses on medical treatment, special diet and conveyance are concerned, the Tribunal has fixed them again at rather lower side. The claimant was entitled to be awarded the actual amount with regard to medical expenses which he had spent. While undergoing treatment in Birla Institute of Medical Research, Gwalior, he had spent about Rs. 1,800/-. This was with regard to the period from 4.10.1987 to 9.10.1987 and from 9.11.1987 to 28.11.1987. The Tribunal, as stated above, has taken this period into consideration and fixed the compensation. This is on the lower side. We deem it fit and proper and this should be fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. 24. So far as special diet is concerned, the Tribunal has again fixed this on the lower side. We deem it appropriate to fix the same at Rs. 3,000/-. 25. While assessing compensation for pain, suffering, past, future and present and disability of 45 per cent the Tribunal has fixed the amount of Rs. 40,000/-.- The Tribunal has fixed a consolidated amount for all the items referred to above. The claimant has not stated anything about the amount of his salary in his claim petition. Again nothing has been said regarding this when he was examined by the Tribunal. All that he has stated is that he was drawing a decent salary. He has also stated that he was raising additional funds by engaging himself in part-time tuitions and also by teaching students of backward and scheduled caste categories. This aspect of the matter was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. All that he has stated is that he was drawing a decent salary. He has also stated that he was raising additional funds by engaging himself in part-time tuitions and also by teaching students of backward and scheduled caste categories. This aspect of the matter was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The claimant has further stated that for a period of four months when he was on leave he has sustained a loss to the extent of Rs. 12,000. Thus, according to him, the monthly loss was to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-. This amount would represent his salary as well. As indicated above, the Tribunal has not given any compensation separately for the pain and suffering and has fixed the compensation at a consolidated amount. This is on the lower side. The patela from his right leg has been totally removed and from his left leg, it has been removed in part. He cannot stand for long. This problem is going to get aggravated as age advances on him. Taking into consideration, the totality of circumstances, the nature of disability, we are of the view that the amount of compensation fixed at Rs. 40,000/- is on the lower side. This is enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to enhanced compensation as under: (i) Pain, suffering, past, future and present, disbility of 45 per cent 70,000/- (ii) Expenses of medicine 5,000/- (iii) Special diet 3,000/- (iv) Loss of salary on account of leave 12,000/- (v) Loss of conveyance, past and future 10,000/- Total ---------------- Rs. 1,00,000/- ---------------- 26. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of application till payment. Respondents to pay costs of appeal. Counsel's fee has been fixed at Rs. 750/-.