Judgment J. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE present misc. appeal has been preferred by the claimant norat Mal challenging the award dated 27. 1. 1994 passed by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Tonk in M. A. C. T. Case no. 108 of 1989. ( 2 ) THE claimant Norat Mal was seriously injured in the accident on 30. 3. 1989 when he was travelling in the bus No. 2996 from Deoli to Kekri; it had collided with a truck No. RSR 7077 near Negdia on Ajmer Road. The collision was so bad that even the bus had broken and separated into two parts. The claimant was injured and was rushed to the Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, where his hand had to be amputated for proper further treatment. The truck was owned by respondent No. 2 and respondent no. 3 was the insurer. The claimant filed claim application claiming Rs. 7,63,160. ( 3 ) THE necessary issues were framed in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and decided all issues in favour of the claimant. However, the amount of compensation was quantified up to Rs. 75,000 only. The claimant has challenged this part of the award. ( 4 ) THE claimant was 22 years of age at the time of accident and he was earning rs. 1,200 per month and had to support the family. His right hand had been amputated with permanent disablement to the extent of 50 per cent. The amputation was done to save him from further deterioration. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal vide impugned award dated 26/27. 1. 1994 had found composite negligence of both the defaulting vehicles and foisted the liability on insurance company of truck up to 2/3rd part and remaining 1/3rd liability has been foisted on the driver of the R. S. R. T. C. The Tribunal had held that even though no evidence has been produced so far as earnings of the injured is concerned, but for the reason that he was hospitalised and one arm had been amputated an amount of Rs. 75,000 has been held to be sufficient as compensation. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that there was no reason for the Tribunal for not awarding higher compensation on the ground that as income has been proved as there was no evidence contrary to that fact. 75,000 has been held to be sufficient as compensation. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that there was no reason for the Tribunal for not awarding higher compensation on the ground that as income has been proved as there was no evidence contrary to that fact. In any case, it cannot be disputed that earning capacity of the appellant had been reduced to the extent of 50 per cent, if not more. Apart from the fact, the injured had suffered multiple injuries, remained hospitalised, had spent heavy amount for treatment and right hand had been amputated. ( 7 ) RELIANCE has been made on the Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh high Court in case of Gandhari Ramesh v. Janardhan, 1999 ACJ 816 (AP), and on a judgment of this court in case of United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sirajuddin, 1999 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan ). ( 8 ) IN case of Gandhari Ramesh, 1999 acj 816 (AP), the oil tanker had bumped against right side portion of bus coming from opposite direction resulting in severance of the right arm from the shoulder of a passenger in the bus. The Tribunal had held that the accident was caused due to composite negligence of both the drivers. The injured was 23 years old and was trained electrician. It was held that right hand had been amputated and the prospect of even going in for an artificial limb was bleak. The prospect of getting married and leading a normal family life had also become bleak. It was doubtful whether the injured can take up any other profitable employment with his left hand. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 1,33,000, which was enhanced to Rs. 3,66,000 by the High court. The accident had occurred in May, 1993. ( 9 ) IN case of United India Insurance co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan), in case of amputation of left hand with 50 per cent permanent disablement, the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 had been awarded as nonpecuniary special damages apart from the medical expenses, etc. The accident was caused in March, 1994, between two trucks. ( 10 ) IN case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court had held that the compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. The accident was caused in March, 1994, between two trucks. ( 10 ) IN case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court had held that the compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special 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 the two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant; (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earnings of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i. e. , on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i. e. , on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) discomfort, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. ( 11 ) IN case of Dr. Gop Ramchandani v. Onkar Singh, 1993 ACJ 577 (Rajasthan), on account of 50 per cent permanent disablement, Rs. 3,00,000 were awarded as non-pecuniary special damages, wherein the injured suffered amputation of one leg. ( 12 ) IN my opinion, so far as the nonecuniary damages are concerned there is hardly any necessity to deviate from the settled principles and I hold that the claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,00,000 as damages. ( 13 ) APART from above, it cannot be denied that the claimant-injured must have spent some amount on treatment. He was working as a welder, a skilled worker, as per his statement and must have spent the money from his pocket. He was admitted to the hospital at Ajmer where his right arm above elbow was amputated and he would have suffered pain and disablement. He was doing the manual work of welding, lathe work and cultivation which requires efforts from both hands and was being paid Rs. 1,200 per month. He was admitted to the hospital at Ajmer where his right arm above elbow was amputated and he would have suffered pain and disablement. He was doing the manual work of welding, lathe work and cultivation which requires efforts from both hands and was being paid Rs. 1,200 per month. He stated in his statement that he had spent about Rs. 6,000 on treatment, Rs. 5,000 on special diet. Even though he has claimed Rs. 20,000 on medicines, treatment and other expenses, but in my opinion, even though he has not produced any evidence in regard to payment of medical bill, etc. , but the court can take notice of the fact that the operation like amputation of arm of a person who is living in a village would cost some amount and in such circumstances, if an amount of Rs. 10,000 is added on this account, it would be justified amount. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 3,10,000 with the same rate of interest as awarded by the tribunal, i. e. , 12 per cent per annum and to be contributed by the owner, driver and the insurer of the truck and the driver and owner of the bus in the same ratio of 2:1 as awarded by the Tribunal. ( 15 ) THE parties agree that interest on the enhanced amount be paid to the claimant from the month and the year when the tribunal had passed the award, i. e. , from january, 1994 to which the counsel for the appellant-claimant has no objection. ( 16 ) IN view of the discussion mentioned above, the Tribunals award is modified and the amount is enhanced to Rs. 3,10,000 from Rs. 75,000. The appellant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent of Rs. 75,000 till 31. 12. 1993, however, the interest after adjustment of the amount so paid shall be payable on the enhanced balance amount at the rate of 12 per cent from 1. 1. 1994 till realisation with the same proportion as was granted by the Tribunal. The amount shall be paid by the respondents according to their liability within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Appeal partly allowed.