Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. On 3.101980, Respondent No. 1 Anjan Banerjee was dashed by the Staff Bus of Central Coalfields Limited, Bearing Registration No. BRM 8463 at Pugmil Road, Hazaribagh and sustained injuries and as a result whereof he became crippled with 100% disability down his lower part of the body and cannot move without the help of an attendant 2. While Sri Banerjee was walking at Pugmil Road and was coming towards east keeping his left, the said vehicle being driven by appellant No. 2, John Barla Francis came from the opposite direction in high speed and on account of rash and negligent drive dashed him. He fell down and both of his legs were crushed under the wheels of the vehicle. He was taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, but since his condition was serious, he was referred to Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, where he received treatment from 4.10.1980 to 1.8.1981 and again from 16.10.1982 to 13.3.1983. On 21.3.1983, he was referred to Vijay Hospital, Madras, where he was admitted on 23.8.1983 and ultimately discharge on 10.10.1983. 3. In connection with the said accident, Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 3(10)80 was registered under Secs. 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. While hospitalised at Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, Anjan Banerjee filed a claim application before the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was registered an Misc. Claim Case No. 6 of 1981. He claimed a sum of Rs. 3,84,000.00 as compensation. In the said claim case, the General Manager (H) Hazaribagh Area Central Coal fields Limited, Charhi, the owner of the vehicle, the driver John Barla Fransis and M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the vehicle were impleaded as opposite parties. 5. By the impugned order and award dated 12.5.1988, the Additional Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh, directed a total sum of Rs. 2,57,800.00 payable to the claimant as compensation out of which Rs. 50,000.00 by the insurer and rest of the amount by the owner of the vehicle. 6. The Insurance Company, as directed by the Tribunal, in the impugned order, out of the total amount of compensation, paid a sum of Rs. 2,57,800.00 payable to the claimant as compensation out of which Rs. 50,000.00 by the insurer and rest of the amount by the owner of the vehicle. 6. The Insurance Company, as directed by the Tribunal, in the impugned order, out of the total amount of compensation, paid a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 payable by i. The owner and driver of the vehicle has preferred this appeal challenging the finding that the accident took place and the claimant was injured for the fault of the driver of the vehicle and in alternative the quantum of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. According to them, since he vehicle was insured at the relevant time, the compensation, if any, on account of the accident in question was not payable by the owner, but by the insurer. 7. The claimant was a young man, aged 27 years at the time of accident. He was employed as Area Manager in a pharmaceutical Company and was getting salary of Rs. 725.00 per month. He had left the said job just sometime before the accident in order to join the best possible job, after completing his B.A. final examination, scheduled to be held in November, 1980. He was called for interview by different organisations. He was educated in renowned institution and was always a good student and had a very bright future prospect. 8. The vehicle in question was the staff bus of the Central Coalfields Limited, under the direct control of the General Manager (H) Hazaribagh Area, Charhi and it stood insured with M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Hazaribagh, Branch. 9. According to the claimant, he was going towards east keeping to his left on Pugmil Road, Hazaribagh where he was dashed by the staff bus, which came from the opposite direction in high speed. The accident took place solely on account of the fault of the driver of the vehicle, who was driving it quite rashly and negligently. 10. In he accident, the claimants both legs were crushed under the wheels of the bus and inspite of long medical treatment incurring huge expense, he has become completely incapable of doing anything and lost all prospects of earning so long he was alive and the mental and physical sufferings undergone by him were difficult to be assessed. 11. 10. In he accident, the claimants both legs were crushed under the wheels of the bus and inspite of long medical treatment incurring huge expense, he has become completely incapable of doing anything and lost all prospects of earning so long he was alive and the mental and physical sufferings undergone by him were difficult to be assessed. 11. On behalf of the claimant, PWs 1,2 and 3 have been examined to prove that the accident in question, were in Anjan Banerjee sustained injuries took solely on account of the fault on the part of the drive of the vehicle. Besides those witnesses, the claimant was also examined on commission. Immediately after the accident a police case was also registered. PW5 the father of the claimant also supported that the accident in this case took place in the manner as alleged in the claim application. Nothing has been brought on record on behalf of the opposite parties in support of their case and claim that the driver was not at fault; even the driver was not examined in this case. The only witness examined by the owner of the vehicle was also not present at the time of the accident and so he was not in a position to say anything about the fault of the driver, if any. The tribunal has discussed this matter in detail vide issue No. 3 in paragraph 6 of the impugned order and, in my opinion, rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The driver was therefore responsible for the accident. 12. PW4, a Doctor, has deposed that even after medical treatment, the stiffness of both hip joints of the claimant could not be removed and on account of total ankyhosys his both knees and ankles have become free. He can stand with help, but cannot bent or sit down and can walk with difficulty with help of walking aid. 13. In such case, for ascertaining the quantum of compensation, the damages sustained by the victim is normally divided into two heads, namely special or pecuniary damages and general or non-pecuniary damages. He can stand with help, but cannot bent or sit down and can walk with difficulty with help of walking aid. 13. In such case, for ascertaining the quantum of compensation, the damages sustained by the victim is normally divided into two heads, namely special or pecuniary damages and general or non-pecuniary damages. The cost of medicines and treatment, loss of earnings up to the date of hearing of the case, expenses for help needed and other pecuniary loss comes under the head special or pecuniary damages and compensation for physical pain and suffering loss of amenities of life and loss of future earning capacity, loss of expectancy of life etc. are to be assessed under the head general damages. However, it is true that money cannot renew a physical frame which has been battered and shattered. 14. A sum of Rs. 40,000.00 is said to have been invested towards medicines and treatment. Exts. 1 to 15 are the report and vouchers relating to the medical expenses. There is nothing to doubt the genuineness of those papers. In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the said sum of Rs. 40,000.00 payable to the claimant on account of the expenses for medicines and treatment. Ext. 21 the school leaving certificate shows that the claimant was born on 12.11.1954 and he was about 27 years old at the time of accident. Ext. 20 series prove the just sometime before the accident, the claimant was under employment and was earning at least Rs. 700.00 per month. Ext. 18, the test admit card issued . on 13.6.1980 by the Controller of the Examinations, St. Columba College, Hazaribagh, shows that the claimant was to appear at the college test examination for Bachelor of Arts. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly found that although the claimant had already left the job and was not under any employment at the time of the accident, but he was capable of earning at least Rs. 700.00 per month. So his annual income at the rate of Rs. 700.00 comes to Rs. 8400.00 . The tribunal applied multiplier of 16 and assessed his total loss of income to Rs. 1,34,400.00 . Rs. 25,000.00 has been awarded for the service of an attendant required during his life as he has become completely invalid. 700.00 per month. So his annual income at the rate of Rs. 700.00 comes to Rs. 8400.00 . The tribunal applied multiplier of 16 and assessed his total loss of income to Rs. 1,34,400.00 . Rs. 25,000.00 has been awarded for the service of an attendant required during his life as he has become completely invalid. The Tribunal calculated the loss of earnings of the claimant from the date of the accident upto the date of hearing of his claim application 1.e. roughly for 7 years at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 8400.00 per year which comes to Rs. 58,800.00 . In all, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 2,57,800.00 to be paid to the claimant as compensation and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application. It is true that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company. The original insurance policy has been brought on the record and marked as Ext. A and the other relevant certificates and papers have been marked as Ext. B. It is a third party insurance. It was valid from 15.6.1980 to 14.6.1981 and the accident took place on 3.10.1980. According to the insurance policy, the claim of the third party relating to the insured vehicle against the insurance company was limited to a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 only. This fact was also admitted by Bhola Kant Senior Horticulture Inspector of Central Coalfields Limited, Charhi, who was examined as DW No. 1. I find that in the original insurance policy (Ext. 1), a limit of the amount of liability in respect of one claim of series of claims arising out of one accident stands mentioned at Rs. 50,000.00 only. In the circumstances the Tribunal rightly held that out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 2,57,8000.00 only a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 was payable by the insurance company and the rest by the owner of the vehicle. 15. The submission of Mr. Suresh Prasad, counsel for the appellant that there was no eye-witness to support that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving and that the claimant being unemployed could not have been presumed to be capable of earning at least Rs. 700.00 per month, have no substance, in my opinion. Mr. 15. The submission of Mr. Suresh Prasad, counsel for the appellant that there was no eye-witness to support that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving and that the claimant being unemployed could not have been presumed to be capable of earning at least Rs. 700.00 per month, have no substance, in my opinion. Mr. G. Mustafa, counsel for the claimant respondent-No. 1 submitted that claimant has become permanently disabled and cripples incapable of leading normal life and shall always require care and caution and help of somebody and, therefore, the tribunal has rightly fixed the amount of compensation payable to the victim at Rs. 2,57,800.00 , which does not require any interference, by this Court, in this appeal. 16. For claiming compensation under the head, loss of earnings upto the date of the hearing of the claim, in my opinion, the injured has to show that he was earning at the time of the accident and that the earning stopped or was reduced on account of the injury. This claim is capable of precise proof and the burden is on the claimant. In the present case, the admitted position is that on the date of the accident, the claimant was not in any job. He was unemployed. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the claimant was not entitled to any amount of special damages in respect of earnings as a result of the injuries because he was not earning anything and was unemployed at the time of the accident there was no occasion for the stoppage of the earnings on account of the injuries. I, therefore, set aside the compensation of Rs. 58.800.00 granted to the claimant for his alleged loss of income for roughly 7 years (c) Rs. 8400.00 per year granted by the Tribunal. In this regard, it is relevant to state that the claimant has adequately been compensated and a sum of Rs. 1,34,400.00 has been awarded to him towards loss of earnings on the basis of the fact that he was at least capable of earning Rs. 700.00 per month. 17. According to the evidence of the Dr. PW4, the claimant can walk with the help of an iron walking aid and therefore, in my opinion, he was not entitled to any amount for the service of an attendant. The sum of Rs. 700.00 per month. 17. According to the evidence of the Dr. PW4, the claimant can walk with the help of an iron walking aid and therefore, in my opinion, he was not entitled to any amount for the service of an attendant. The sum of Rs. 25,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal for the service of attendant is accordingly set aside. 18. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order and award is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 2,57,800.00 the claimant respondent No. 2 1 shall be paid Rs. 1,74,000.00 with interest at the rte of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the payment. Out of that, a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 and interest thereon is said to have already been paid. As such, the owner of the vehicle appellant No. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,24,000.00 (rupees on lakh and twentyfour thousand) with interest as aforesaid to the respondent No. 1.