Judgment J. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE present misc. award dated 16. 4. 1996 passed by Motor appeal has been preferred challenging the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, jaipur in M. A. C. T. Case No. 469 of 1992 whereby the claimant has been awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,65,000 only. This present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the award. ( 2 ) THE claimant has sustained injuries in the road accident occurred on 24. 3. 1992 when he was riding the motor cycle No. RRX 8736, he was struck by the truck No. RNF 3547 being driven by Ram Nath, respondent No. 1. The claimant suffered compound fractures of right hand and right leg. Right leg was amputated later on. Due to this accident, he was admitted in hospital six times and operated upon about 7 times. He had to remain on leave for about two years. He cannot climb the stairs. According to medical opinion the permanent disability is to the extent of 70 per cent. According to the claimant, he spent about Rs. 50,000 for treatment and another amount Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 25,000 was spent on special diet. The claimant claimed in all rs. 9,00,000. ( 3 ) APART from the oral evidence as many as 354 documents were exhibited. No one appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) AFTER framing the required issues in regard to accident, negligence and quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the statements of witnesses and the documents, it was held by the Tribunal that the accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver of the truck. The Tribunal had found that because of compound fracture in right leg of the claimant, his right leg was amputated below knee and his collar bone and fingers were also fractured. The claimant was working in the punjab National Bank. He remained on leave from March, 1992 to April, 1994. He is using crutches while walking. He proved his salary as well as the leave taken by him. He sustained the permanent disability to the extent of 70 per cent after the amputation of leg, the claimant is unable to drive any vehicle whatsoever. Admittedly, he cannot walk or run and cannot do the normal work. ( 5 ) THE salary of the claimant at the time of accident was Rs. He sustained the permanent disability to the extent of 70 per cent after the amputation of leg, the claimant is unable to drive any vehicle whatsoever. Admittedly, he cannot walk or run and cannot do the normal work. ( 5 ) THE salary of the claimant at the time of accident was Rs. 3,400 per month (asper Exh. 4 ). He remained on leave for about two years. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 80,000 for the suffering and injuries and Rs. 81,000 for pecuniary loss as regard to salary. ( 6 ) FOR the reason that the appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation; there is hardly any necessity to enter into any other aspect of the case, i. e. , in regard to negligence or the manner in which the accident had taken place. No counter appeal has been filed by any of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE counsel for appellant relies on the judgment in case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 acj 366 (SC), it was held that whenever a Tribunal or court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. Similar were the observations made in case of Ashwani Kumar mishra v. P. Muniam Babu, 1999 ACJ 1105 (SC ). However, all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards. While assessing the damages, the court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy, though conjectures to some extent are inevitable. ( 8 ) IN case of Ashwani Kumar Mishra, 1999 ACJ 1105 (SC), apart from the medical expenses, Rs. 20,000 were awarded for special diet and expenses for attendant during the treatment. On guesswork his income was assessed to be Rs. 2,000 and applying the multiplier of 16 years, awarded the amount on account of loss of expectation of life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress particularly when he has to keep a permanent attendant to look after him in his rest of life. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for appellant relies on the judgment in case of Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), wherein the injured sustained several fractures in leg resulting in shortening of leg by 3", who was 17 years old. He suffered permanent disability. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for appellant relies on the judgment in case of Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), wherein the injured sustained several fractures in leg resulting in shortening of leg by 3", who was 17 years old. He suffered permanent disability. He underwent bone grafting and hospitalization. The Apex Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,58,000 from rs. 58,000. The accident has occurred in the year 1977. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for appellant also relied on the judgment in case of Karnataka State road Trans. Corpn. v. R. Sethuram, 1996 acj 1022 (Karnataka), wherein mitigation of damages were permitted to be raised at appellate stage for the first time. The injured sustained fractures and remained indoor patient for four months in India and then went for treatment to USA. He underwent four operations. The injured was 33 years old, employed in USA and was a green-card holder. The injured became crippled for life as his right hand always remained in a clawed position and he could not walk but with the aid of stick. The injured had lost the lustre of youthful life including sex life and participation in social activities, sports and swimming. He lost the salary of 31 months. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,32,900 for medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment and rs. 2,00,000 towards general damages. The award of the Tribunal was upheld by the Apex Court by the judgment reported in 1999 ACJ 1278 (SC ). ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment in case of jitendra Singh v. Islam, 1998 ACJ 1301 (Rajasthan), wherein the injured had sustained amputation of left leg and permanent disability to the extent of 55 per cent. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000 as non-pecuniary damages for loss of amenities of life, mental agony and pain and suffering plus Rs. 4,000 for medical expenses. The appellate court allowed non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 3,00,000. ( 12 ) IN case of Bhagwan Singh Meena v. Jai Kishan Tiwari, 1999 ACJ 1200 (Rajasthan), the non-pecuniary damages were enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000 in case of amputation of right leg of the injured. Yet in another case of Gandhari Ramesh v. Janardhan, 1999 ACJ 816 (AP), the appellate court enhanced the compensation to rs. 3,66,000 in case of total severance of right arm of injured having loss of efficiency to the extent of 90 per cent. 3,00,000 in case of amputation of right leg of the injured. Yet in another case of Gandhari Ramesh v. Janardhan, 1999 ACJ 816 (AP), the appellate court enhanced the compensation to rs. 3,66,000 in case of total severance of right arm of injured having loss of efficiency to the extent of 90 per cent. ( 13 ) IN case of Swatantra Kumar Lamba v. Sheila Didi, 1988 ACJ 74 (Pandh), the injured suffered fractures in both bones of the left leg and shortening of leg by 2 cm. resulting in limping and permanent disability to the extent of 20 per cent. The movements of ankle were limited and dorsiflexion was limited to half. The injured found it difficult to stand on tiptoes. The injured was an advocate and 30 years old and could not attend to his professional work for about 10 months. The award of rs. 3,53,500 was granted. ( 14 ) IN case of Ekta Khaitan \. Sita Ram, 2000 ACJ 744 (Rajasthan), wherein the right leg and right middle finger of injured were amputated. She sustained fractures in both the thigh bones and left leg bone and received deep cuts on her forehead and face. This court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as non-pecuniary compensation along with rs. 97,213. 62 pecuniary damages. ( 15 ) IN the case of Inspector General, stamps and Registration v. Bhagwan singh, S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 267 of 2000; decided on 22. 9. 2000, this court upheld the award of Rs. 5,40,000 non-pecuniary damages and pecuniary loss of Rs. 1,00,000 along with Rs. 1,25,000 as such the total award of Rs. 7,65,000 was upheld which was awarded to the injured who suffered amputation of left leg. This court has held as under:"while determining the quantum of compensation the court has to take into consideration damages separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. The 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: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning 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 loss of expectation of life, i. e. , on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. " ( 16 ) IN the present case the injured had to suffer multiple fractures. His one leg was amputated. He had to undergo 6/7 operations. He remained on leave for about two years. He is suffering pain because of injuries and he always needs help of one or the other. As per medical certificate, he suffered 70 per cent permanent disability because of the accident occurred in the year 1992. For such injury, non-pecuniary compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000 cannot be said to be justified. The Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts of the case and also to the principles discussed above. ( 17 ) THE award of the Tribunal is to be modified in the following manner: (I) the compensation of non-pecuniary damages is enhanced from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 3,50,000; (II) the claimant shall be entitled to the pay of two years of Rs. 80,000 instead of Rs. 81,600; (III) the claimant shall be entitled to special diet and for expenses of coming and going to hospital which is assessed as Rs. 20,000; (IV) it is stated that the claimant had spent Rs. 55,000 for medical expenses, which aspect has not been discussed by the Tribunal. The injured who remained on leave for about 2 years and had been operated upon about 6/7 times, his leg has been amputated, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 50,000 can be termed as on excessive side. Rs. 50,000 is awarded for medical expenses. 55,000 for medical expenses, which aspect has not been discussed by the Tribunal. The injured who remained on leave for about 2 years and had been operated upon about 6/7 times, his leg has been amputated, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 50,000 can be termed as on excessive side. Rs. 50,000 is awarded for medical expenses. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above the total amount of compensation including non-pecuniary compensation is enhanced 2003 ACJ 1770 ( 19 ) THE balance of the amount of compensation shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order by respondents jointly and severally. Any amount so far paid, shall be adjusted. ( 20 ) OUT of the amount so enhanced rs. 1,00,000 shall be paid in cash, which shall be deposited in bank in savings account for meeting the day-to-day expenses and the remaining amount shall be deposited in FDR in scheduled bank, Punjab national Bank, where the appellant is employed, for a minimum period of three years with liberty to claimant to withdraw the interest, if so required by him. ( 21 ) WITH the above observations, the misc. appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed