Judgment D.C. Dalela, J.-It is alleged that on 20.11.1985 an accident took place involving truck No. GTH 7626 which was being driven by the respondent No. 1 negligently and rashly. The truck belonged to the respondent No. 2 and it was insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3. In this accident, the claimant- appellant sustained injuries on the right hand, thigh and other parts of the body. The bones of right hand and thigh were fractured and he sustained permanent disablement of the hand. He, therefore, moved a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), which after receiving the evidence and hearing both the sides, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 against the claim of Rs. 3,43,000. Feeling aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. Obviously, it is a case of personal injuries sustained by claimant-appellant in the accident involving the said truck in question. According to Dr. S.K. Moda (AW 7), the appellant sustained permanent disablement between 55 per cent and 60 per cent in the right hand and, there were fractures in the right thigh besides other injuries. 4. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant-the loss of earnings, medical attendance and other material loss. Non-pecuniary damages include damages for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life and on account of the inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. In the case of personal injuries, it is the claimant himself who utilises the amount of compensation and it is he who suffers the impact of the incident throughout his life. In the case of personal injuries, it is the claimant himself who utilises the amount of compensation and it is he who suffers the impact of the incident throughout his life. Therefore, while determining the quantum of compensation, the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Apex Court should not be lost sight of 5. Theclaimant-appellant (AW 1) has deposed that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, he had to be hospitalised for 3 1/2 months and about Rs. 60,000 were spent on the treatment and other miscellaneous heads. In the claim petition, the claimant-appellant has claimed Rs. 25,000 for expenses on hospitalisation or on medical investigation, medicines and the consultation charges of the doctors. He has claimed Rs. 22,000 on account of the expenses on the attendants who came to see him and attended him during his confinement in the hospital. The learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,000 on account of the expenses incurred on medical treatment, hospitalisation and the attendants. In my opinion, this amount is inadequate looking to the injuries and fractures resulting in the permanent disablement of 55 per cent. Having regard to the evidence on record, the circumstance which has emerged there from and the nature of injuries, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000 should be awarded on account of the expenses incurred on the medical treatment, hospitalisation and medicines, etc., Rs. 10,000 should be awarded on account of the expenses which had to be incurred on the attendants who attended him during his confinement in the hospital. According to the claimant-appellant his income was Rs. 1,400 per month and he remained in confinement in the hospital for three and half months, therefore, the total loss of his income, etc., comes to Rs. 5,000. Thus, in my opinion, the pecuniary damages to which the claimant-appellant is entitled are Rs. 25,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 5,000 = Rs. 40,000. 6. Thelearned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the claimant-appellant had to be re-ho spitalised in Rohtak when he sustained the second fracture in the legs, but the learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence available on the record, has come to the conclusion that the second fracture is not the result of the accident and, therefore, no amount of pecuniary compensation is awarded on account of the second hospitalisation, etc. Broadly, I agree with the finding and the reasoning of the learned Tribunal in this behalf 7. Thenon-pecuniary damages on account of the injuries sustained in the right hand of the claimant-appellant and resulting in the permanent disablement, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 25,000. In my opinion, this amount of compensation is inadequate. The appellant-claimant has suffered 55 per cent permanent disablement in the right hand from the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. This amount is required to be enhanced to Rs. 50,000. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000 as non-pecuniary damages for the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant on his right thigh. Since there is no permanent disablement in the leg, I think that the damages awarded by the learned Tribunal are adequate. The appellant has sustained 55 per cent permanent disablement in his right hand and by profession he was a driver, therefore, on account of the future loss of earning on account of the permanent disablement, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 45,000 only. This amount is required to be enhanced to Rs. 60,000. Thus, the total non-pecuniary damages to which the claimant-appellant is entitled are Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 60,000 = Rs. 1,30,000. Thus, the total gross compensation-pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary-comes to Rs. 1,30,000 + Rs. 40,000 = Rs. 1,70,000. 8. No other point has been urged and argued or pressed before me. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The total amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,70,000 from Rs. 1,05,000. To this extent, the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified. The other part, terms and conditions of the award are maintained.