JUDGMENT A.L. VAIDYA, J.—The appeal as well as the cross-objections are being disposed of by the present common judgment as they have arisen out of the same award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan on 5-8-1992. 2. The appellant Sh. Nand Lal on 14.4.1989 at about 3.15 p.m. near Dharampur on Dharampur-Subathu Road sustained some injureies on his person on account of a Motor Accident alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Army Vehicle by respondent No. 3. Case of the appellant, as pleaded before the Tribunal, had been that on the aforesaid date he was coming To Dharampur from Subathu on his scooter and when he reached near Dharampur, an army truck being driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner while coming from the opposite side struck against the scooter of the appellant, as a result of which the appellant fell on the ground. According to the appellant, the truck came on the wrong side of the road and scooter was dragged to some distance. The appellant on account of this sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of right femur and nasal bone. The appellant also sustained some head injury. The appellant after getting first aid at District Hospital, Solan was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he remained admitted as Indoor patient till 2-5-1989 and was discharged on 3-5-1989. According to the appellant, even after discharge he remained confined to bed. The appellant pleaded that he suffered permanent physical disability due to shortening of his right leg. According to him, he spent about Rs. 23,500/- on his treatment. The appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3. Respondents in a way have not denied the accident. But, according to them, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the appellant himself. Rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 3 was contested. According to the respondents, the appellant was alleged to have not disputed his negligence and has furnished no damage claim to the Army Authorities. It was also pleaded that Court inquiry appointed by respondent No. 1 also came to the conclusion that the accident took place not due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 but due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant. It was also pleaded that Court inquiry appointed by respondent No. 1 also came to the conclusion that the accident took place not due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 but due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant. The compensation asked for has also been contested. 4. The parties were put to trial on the following issues by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, an employee of respondents 1 and 2 ? 2. To what compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled ? OP Parties. 3. Whether the petition is within time ? OPP 4. Relief. 5. Issue No. 1 was decided in the affirmative while under issue No. 2 Rs. 30,000/- were awarded in favour of the claimant and issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the claimant. The claimant was also entitled to the interest on the amount awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till the payment was made or deposited. The Tribunal also directed to pay/deposit the amount along with interest accruing due thereon within 30 days from the date of making of award, failing which the respondents were held to be liable to pay interest at the enhanced rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition, that is, 16-10-1989 till the date of payment/deposit of the amount. 6. The aforesaid award has been assailed by the claimant in the present FAO (MVA No. 319/92 on various grounds and it has been pleaded that on the basis of the evidence on record, the claimant was entitled to compensation asked for by him. On the other hand, the cross-objections No. 263/93, preferred by the respondents have assailed the award mainly on two grounds, that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant and secondly that the compensation assessed was on very much higher aside. 7. The entire record has been scrutinised minutely and the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties have also been considered. 8. 7. The entire record has been scrutinised minutely and the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties have also been considered. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals findings on issue No. 1 were factually wrong inasmuch as according to the learned counsel the injuries sustained by the claimant were due to his own rash and negligent driving of the scooter. Learned counsels line of argument in this particular behalf has been that the claimant at the time of alleged accident was driving the scooter without having any valid licence as he was holding learners licence at that time and secondly in the inquiry conducted by the respondents of the accident under reference, the claimant had made a statement that the accident was due to his rash and negligent driving. Both these aspects of the mat-tar are not so simple as has been submitted. In order to appreciate the said submissions the evidence on record has to be appreciated. 9. Simply because the claimant was having a learner driving licence, It will not under any Saw be presumed that he was driving scooter rashly and negligently. In order to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the claimant the other facts are essential to be established before the court. A person without having any valid licence or having learners licence may drive the vehicle properly without there being any negligence or rashness on his part To drive a vehicle without a valid driving licence is an offence itself and in case rashness or negligence is legally proved, in that event driving by such a person without any valid licence may be an additional factor to be taken into consideration. In case the claimant was driving his scooter in a proper manner without there being any rashness or negligence on his part, his having learner licence will not in any manner help the case of the respondents. 10. At this stage, Suleman Rehiman Mulani and another v. The State of Maharashtra, 1968 A.C.J, 51, can safely be referred, wherein the Apex Court held that driving a motor vehicle without a valid licence Ipso facto does not raise a presumption of rash and negligent driving, as a man could be proficient in driving and yet through sheer indifference he might not have taken a licence. It has also been held in this very case by the Apex Court that the prosecution has not only to prove that the accused was guilty of rash or negligent driving but also that it was the rash or negligent act which caused the death. 11. Similar view has been taken in Parminder Singh v. Mukatsar Janta Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. and another, 1973 ACJ 166, P&H High Court and Sanjay Kumar v. Shokatali and others, 1986 ACJ 357, High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, indore Bench. The present respondents have examined RW. 3 Major Rajiv Kumar, who deposed that he had visited the spot after he came to know about the alleged accident and on 15-4-1989 he went to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where the claimant was admitted. The witness further added that the claimant admitted before him that the accident was due to his fault and he was ready to submit no damage claim certificate. The witness further stated that he recorded the statement of the claimant in the presence of his elder brother and he signed the said statement. Ex. R-1 is the photostat copy of that statement which was alleged to be correct to the original. Ex. RW-3/A is the certified copy of the statement of the witness which is alleged to have been recorded during the inquiry, wherein also he deposed to the aforesaid fact. The claimant at that time was admitted in P.G.I. Chandigarh for treatment of his injuries. The witness admitted that the claimant at that time was lying in the Emergency ward and the witness did not contact the Doctor at P.G.L under whose care the claimant was taking treatment. The witness also stated that he did not ask the Doctor whether the claimant was fit to make a statement and no permission for recording the statement was also obtained by the witness- He has admitted that the statement recorded by him, copy of which on record is Ex. R-1, did not bear any date on which the same was recorded, nor the place where it was recorded found mention therein. The witness also admitted that there were cuttings and over-writings in the statement (Ex.R.1) which have not been initialled either by him or by claimant or by any of the witness thereto. Nand Lal claimant while appearing as PW. The witness also admitted that there were cuttings and over-writings in the statement (Ex.R.1) which have not been initialled either by him or by claimant or by any of the witness thereto. Nand Lal claimant while appearing as PW. 6 in this regard stated that when he was in P.G.I, two Army Officers visited him twice and they told that they would get him claim for his injuries and once as far as he remembered they obtained his signatures but he did not know what was written on those papers. The claimant also admitted his signatures on Ex. R.1 and according to him the document had already been recorded when he affixed his signatures on the same. 12. RW 4 is Major Sanjeev Sehgal who deposed that he was a member of Court of Inquiry in connection with the alleged accident while Major Jagjeet Singh was the Presiding Officer of that inquiry and Subedar Jeet Bhadur was the second member. The Court of Inquiry, according to this witness, submitted its report to Station Headquarters. Ex. RW 4/A was the original copy of the said report which had his signature and that of the Presiding Officer also. Ex. RW. 4/B has been produced by this witness which is the certified copy of the statement made by the claimant before the Court of Inquiry. It may be pointed out here that this Ex. RW 4/B was recorded on 29-4-1989 when the claimant was still in P.G.I. Again, there is nothing on record to suggest that the statement was recorded after obtaining the permission of the Doctor who was treating the claimant in P.G.L Both the statements referred to above have not also been got attested by the Doctor. The claimant was also suffering from head injury and with that background it was most essential to have sought permission of the Doctor whether the patient was in a position to make statement or not ? This Ex. RW 4/B was never put to the claimant when he was examined on oath. Otherwise also, there is nothing in this Ex. RW 4/B whereby the claimant admitted that the accident was caused due to his fault. No doubt, he has admitted that he was having a learners licence and has stated that the speed of the military vehicle was 25 to 30 kms per hour and was coming at a high speed. 13. Otherwise also, there is nothing in this Ex. RW 4/B whereby the claimant admitted that the accident was caused due to his fault. No doubt, he has admitted that he was having a learners licence and has stated that the speed of the military vehicle was 25 to 30 kms per hour and was coming at a high speed. 13. Any way the fact remains that aforesaid two statements brought on record cannot be used against the claimant especially when those were made when because of head injury the claimant was admitted in P.G.I, and the person who recorded the statement did not take the opinion of the Doctor whether the patient was in a position to make a statement. Moreover, the Doctor was not at all involved in those proceedings. These documents, as such, do not carry any legal weight and have been rightly ignored by the learned Tribunal. 14. At this stage, apart from oral evidence examined by the claimant, an important document has been brought on record which is Ex. RW.1/A, the site plan of the place of occurrence, prepared during the investigation of a criminal case by RW.1 Phul Parkash S.I. There is no doubt that this S.I. stated that the case had been cancelled and according to him cancellation report was submitted by him as the claimant was not having any driving licence except learners licence and according to investigation the military vehicle was on its own side, he also added that he was informed that the matter had been compromised. This site plan, prepared by this witness has to make out a different case which has not been so stated by this witness. In the site plan Ex. RW-1/A it is very clearly referred that the damaged vehicle was on its own side and the military vehicle has been shown ahead at the turn. The site plan reflected that the accident had taken place on the extreme left side of the road when one was coming from Subathu side and proceeding towards Dharampur. Admittedly, the military truck owned by the respondents was coming from Dharampur side and proceeding towards Subathu. The site plan definitely supported the case of the claimant that the truck while being driven at a high speed, dashed against the scooter which was on its left side of the road. 15. Statement of claimant along with statements of PW. Admittedly, the military truck owned by the respondents was coming from Dharampur side and proceeding towards Subathu. The site plan definitely supported the case of the claimant that the truck while being driven at a high speed, dashed against the scooter which was on its left side of the road. 15. Statement of claimant along with statements of PW. 3 Om Parkash and PW, 4 Harminder Kumar, have fully supported the fact that it was due to rash and negligent driving of the military vehicles driver that the accident took place. The learned Tribunals finding to that effect, as such, is based upon the facts which have been rightly and legally appreciated and that finding requires no interference. 16. So far as injuries sustained by the claimant were concerned, those have not been seriously disputed, but the dispute between the parties pertained to quantum of compensation. In a case of present nature as the disability has been caused to the claimant, the compensation is awarded to a living person and not to the dependants or to the estate of the deceased person and it is because of that in some disablement cases the compensation awards are always higher than even in cases of death because the compensation has to be awarded in favour of a per son who is still alive for his personal loss and for the economic loss. 17. In the injury cases, two types of damages can be awarded in favour of the injured. One being the pecuniary and other one non-pecuniary. The pecuniary damages are generally awarded in order to make good the pecuniary loss to which the claimant might have been put to on account of the accident and were capable of being computed in terms of money. One being the pecuniary and other one non-pecuniary. The pecuniary damages are generally awarded in order to make good the pecuniary loss to which the claimant might have been put to on account of the accident and were capable of being computed in terms of money. This kind of damages can be safely sub-divided as under: (1) towards medical expenses, expenses, over special diet prescribed and the cost of nursing or attendant; (2) any loss of earning or profit up to the date of the trial, (3) consequent loss or reduction in the earning capacity immediately or in future and reduction in his capability in the labour market, any loss of salary or other earning due to the termination of service or its discontinuance or any loss in trade, business and profession on that account and (4) any other material loss such as any special treatment or aid required by the injured or the claimant for the rest of his life. The non-pecuniary loss or general damages, also include a number of elements which can be detailed as follows : (1) damages for mental shock and physical pain and suffering already or likely to be suffered in future; (2) for loss of amenities of life such as incapability of the claimant to walk, run, sit or diminution of marriage prospects, consortium and such other emenitles, diminution in the expectation of life due to injury caused and (3) inconvenience, hardship, frustration and mental strains consequent upon the injury caused by the accident, 18. PW. 5 is Doctor M.S. Dhillon, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedic, PGI. Chandigarh, who deposed that Ex. PW. 5/A was the discharged slip issued by the witness, when the claimant was discharged from PGL Chandigarh. The witness added that according to this discharge slip and record which he had brought, Nand Lal son of Tek Chand was admitted in P.G.L on 15- 4-1989 with the alleged injury on 14-4-1989 and was discharged after treatment on 3-5-1989. According to the Doctor, the claimant sustained following injuries : 1. The patient was having trochanteric fracture of right femur. 2. Fracture of nasal bone and head injury. Doctor further opined that both these injuries were grievous in nature. Doctor further added that the patient was treated by skin-traction followed by POP hip-spica and was not operated due to head injury and was treated convervatively, 19. The patient was having trochanteric fracture of right femur. 2. Fracture of nasal bone and head injury. Doctor further opined that both these injuries were grievous in nature. Doctor further added that the patient was treated by skin-traction followed by POP hip-spica and was not operated due to head injury and was treated convervatively, 19. Doctor further added that after the discharge, the injured was advised to visit PGI. Ex. PW. 5/B was the record of the follow up visits of the injured. According to this record, Doctor stated that the claimant was coax-vora and more than one inch of shortening of the leg and because of that he could develop pain In the back and had difficulties in walking and sitting. 20. PW. 1 is Dr. R.P. Singla, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Solan. This Doctor has issued handicapped certificate which is Ex. PW. I/A on record. This certificate was issued by the Doctor as stated by him on account of mal-united facture trochanteric right femur. According to the Doctor, the percentage of disability was 52%. The claimant was examined as PW. 6 and regarding his injuries he stated that at the time of accident he became unconscious and regained consciousness at PGI Chandigarh on the next day. The accident took place on 14-4-1989. The witness also added that he stayed in P.G.I. till 3-5-1989. He also disclosed that when he was discharged his leg was in plaster and was advised to visit for regular check-up every month. Witness further added that he kept on visiting P.G.I till December 1989 and after that he was advised that he could go for check-up in the local hospital. Witness also stated that thereafter he used to visit Ripon Hospital and after that the District Hospital at Solan. Witness added that because of his accident his right leg has been shortened by 2 to 2 1/2 inches and he was having difficulty in walking, sitting. Witness further added that he could not even travel by bus, could not sit for long hours. According to him, he could not answer the call of nature without the help of an attendant. Witness further stated that in February, 1991 on his request he was posted in Punjab National Bank Branch at Subathu which was near his village and he was staying in a rented accommodation and paying Rs. 500/- for the same and Rs. According to him, he could not answer the call of nature without the help of an attendant. Witness further stated that in February, 1991 on his request he was posted in Punjab National Bank Branch at Subathu which was near his village and he was staying in a rented accommodation and paying Rs. 500/- for the same and Rs. 300/- to his attendant per month. Witness also stated that he was unmarried. According to him, because of his becoming handicapped, negotiations regarding his marriage could not be materialised and he represented that prospects of his marriage were very bleak. According to him, he had spent about Rs. 24,000/- out of which Rs. 18,900/- were spent for the treatment and visits to various places and had spent Rs, 1,554/- on medicines. Regarding this amount, according to him, he had submitted Annexure I to III with the main petition. Witness further added that at the time of accident he was studying the final year of B.A.. During the cross-examination, he stated that the was in bank service and he was entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. According to him, claim for reimbursement was made for Rs. 2,000/-. It may be pointed out here that the main cross-examination conducted on the claimant has been pertaining to the factum of rash and negligent driving which caused the accident. Only one question regarding the prospects of his marriage having been rendered bleak on account of disability suffered by him was put. Regarding injuries and sufferings, he was having after the alleged accident with respect to walking, sitting and doing some work, no cross-examination has been conducted. The injuries stated by this witness and supported by the Doctor, as referred to above, have not been disputed and the witnesses to that effect have not been cross-examined. 21. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts pertaining to the injuries suffered by the claimant, the just compensation to be awarded in his favour has to be assessed. 22. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the learned Claims Tribunal has acted illegally in awarding Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the claimant for the amounts spent by him towards his treatment, medicines, transport, etc. for want of legal evidence. 22. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the learned Claims Tribunal has acted illegally in awarding Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the claimant for the amounts spent by him towards his treatment, medicines, transport, etc. for want of legal evidence. Learned counsels line of argument in this particular behalf has been that no documentary evidence in support of the amounts spent by the claimant has been brought on record and on that score award in this aspect made by the learned Tribunal is to be interfered with. It may not be out of place to refer here that the claimant was hospitalized for the treatment of his injuries, which he had sustained in the accident. The injuries have been proved, it has been proved from the evidence of the respondents even that the claimant remained admitted in P.G.I, for his treatment and after discharge also there is evidence on record that the claimant has been visiting not only Chandigarh but to other places for follow up treatment of the injuries sustained by him. It is correct that no documentary evidence regarding the amount spent for treatment has been brought on record, but that does not mean that no amount was spent by the claimant for his medical treatment. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, Rs. 5,000/- assessed by the Tribunal does not appear to be an excessive amount. 23. It has further been contended that amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as non-pecuniary damages again was on excessive side especially when inspite of injuries the claimant was in bank service and having a regular income therefrom. 24. The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondents do not appeal to reasonings at all. As has been pointed out, the claimant can be compensated for non-pecuniary loss for mental shock, physical pain and suffering already or likely to be suffered in future and for loss of amenities of life such as incapability of the claimant to walk, run sit or diminution of marriage prospects, etc. Inconvenience, hardship, frustration and mental strains consequent upon the injury caused by the accident have to be taken note of while awarding compensation under this Head of non-pecuniary loss. 25. Inconvenience, hardship, frustration and mental strains consequent upon the injury caused by the accident have to be taken note of while awarding compensation under this Head of non-pecuniary loss. 25. The physical pain suffered by the claimant as a result of the aforesaid accident can simply be inferred from the injuries suffered by him and the medical treatment given to the claimant Not only that it has come in evidence that disability was 52% and one of his leg was shortened by 2 to 2 1/2 inches. It has also come in evidence that the claimant on account of these injuries cannot walk and run normally and was not in a position to sit comfortably. Not only that his marriage prospects, as stated by him, have also been very bleak. Apart from that his future prospect for selecting any professional career has been limited by the said disability. Ali these aspects have to be considered while assessing the compensation in this particular regard. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1996 A.C.J, 1060, Pradeep Gupta v. Pancham Singh and others, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and 1996 A,C.J. Sham Harbhagvandas Peshori V. Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Pradeep Guptas case (supra) had an occasion to assess the compensation in a case of leg injury. In that case there was a fracture in right femur leading to shortening of leg by 2 1/2 inches, in that case, the injured remained hospitalised for about 3 months and underwent operation. The Tribunal awarded Rs, 40,000/- and the Appellate Court allowed Rs, 50,000/- for permanent disability, Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- for treatment and Rs. 10,000/- for special diet. The total amount awarded by the Appellate Court was Rs. 90,000/- 27. In Sham Harbhagvandas Peshoris case (supra) the case again was of leg injury whereby leg of the claimant was shortened by 21/2 inches. In that case injured had undergone seven operations and remained under treatment for about 1 1/2 year and could not attend to his job during that period. The age of the injured was 47 years who suffered from disfigurement, loss of mobility and loss of capacity to work. The Tribunal in that case awarded Rs. 30,000/- and the Appellate Court allowed Rs. 35,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. The age of the injured was 47 years who suffered from disfigurement, loss of mobility and loss of capacity to work. The Tribunal in that case awarded Rs. 30,000/- and the Appellate Court allowed Rs. 35,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 35,000/- for loss of earnings, Rs, 10,000/- for incidental expenses, Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 30,000/- for loss of earning capacity. The award made by the Tribunal, as such, was enhanced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 1,25000/-. 28. it is correct that while assessing the compensation, facts of individual case have always to be kept in mind. There are no hard and fast principles to assess the compensation to the mathematical procedure. The compensation has to be just and reasonable. 29. As pointed out above, the claimant was suffering from 52% disability and on account of injuries caused in the accident, under reference, his future prospects of Site have been adversely affected. Thus, taking into consideration all these facts Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand), if assessed under the Head pertaining to non-pecuniary loss, it will meet the ends of justice. 30. Thus, in view of the foregoing reasons, the present appeal preferred by the claimant is accepted and the award given by the Claims Tribunal is modified and as a consequence thereof, an amount of Rs. 55,000/- (Rs. fifty-five thousand) as compensation is awarded in favour of claimant and against the respondents with costs. The claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the amount was paid/deposited. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand). The cross-objections, preferred by the respondents are disallowed. Appeal allowed.