1. This appeal is arising out of the order-dated 21.2.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby he has awarded Rs. 93,000/- minus interim relief of Rs. 25.000/- i.e. Rs. 68.000/-, plus interest to the claimant/respondent. 2. The road accident giving rise to this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 occurred on 2.6.1994 near Science College, REC, Jammu at 11 00 a.m.. In the said accident, Kamal Krishan, 19 years old, a student sustained fracture in his leg and, therefore Claim Petition came to be commenced by him claiming an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- under different heads specified in para 25 of the Claim Petition by way of compensation, against the appellant. 3. The respondent, who is originally the Claimant, inter-alia, contended that he was walking near Science College, when Respondent-2, driving motor-cycle rashly and negligently proceeding towards Jewel, hit the claimant and caused the accident, as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries resulting into 10% permanent disability on account of stiffness of knee joint (right). The opponents-1 and 2. Union of India and the driver of the offending motor-cycle, appeared and contested the claim on variety of grounds specified in their demurrer filed on 10-1 -1995. Inter-alia, controverting the allegations and claims made in the plaint itself. 4 The Tribunal, after raising the issues and considering the evidence, awarded Rs. 93.000/- under various categories after making assessment, both on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages by way of compensation for personal injuries, which is questioned before this Court in first appeal by invoking powers under Section 173 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, and assessed and awarded the compensation contrary to the evidence on record. That the compensation has been assessed only on surmises, conjectures and imagination without considering the material facts relevant for its determination. That the respondent-injured was examined by Dr. Anil Gupta after a gap of two years and the disability to the extent of 10% assessed by the doctor is without any basis and, thus could not be considered by the Tribunal while estimating quantum of compensation to be awarded in the case. That the respondent-injured was examined by Dr. Anil Gupta after a gap of two years and the disability to the extent of 10% assessed by the doctor is without any basis and, thus could not be considered by the Tribunal while estimating quantum of compensation to be awarded in the case. Lastly, it was submitted by appellants counsel that a certified copy of the judgment of the Trial Magistrate acquitted driver, respondent-2, in a criminal case relating to the accident registered against him, but this fact has neither been considered nor any finding has been returned by the Tribunal, which rendered the award untenable and invalid. 6. As regards the first contention of the appellants counsel that the Trial Court, without considering the evidence on record, has assessed and awarded compensation, it is pertinent to point out that compensation in case of injuries and the criteria for awarding, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 (I) ACJ 366 and it was held that some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused are all involved. But all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards It, therefore, follows that while estimating the amount of compensation payable to the victim of accident, damages to the assessed pecuniary and non-pecuniary separately. The pecuniary damages include the actual amount incurred and capable of assessment being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are incapable of assessment by arithmetical calculation. 7. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account, including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. As against this, the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is difficult determine, but the award must reflect that the various circumstances have been taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, the claimant, a student of 19 years old, has been crippled because of the accident. He may have many aspirations, to have joined belt force, of which he has been deprived. He cannot take part in any activities requiring physical exercise. Dr. Anil Gupta examined the claimant on 2-6-1996 in the hospital, as is found from the discharge slip. He may have many aspirations, to have joined belt force, of which he has been deprived. He cannot take part in any activities requiring physical exercise. Dr. Anil Gupta examined the claimant on 2-6-1996 in the hospital, as is found from the discharge slip. He also admitted that this discharge slip issued by his House Surgeon. Dr. Anil Gupta has given 10% permanent disability on account of stiffness of knee joint (right). He, however lastly examined the claimant on 4-3-1996. There is nothing in the certificate of Dr. Anil Gupta as to stiffness of knee joint (right) amounting to 10% permanent disability, reduced with the passage of time. 9. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident, respondent/claimant, was an active student has become handicapped for life long on account of injuries sustained by him. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the claimant. It is in this background that the Courts have consistently held that whenever any amount is taken as the compensation for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury, so far as money can compensate, because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 10. Mr. Romesh Arora, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that in the absence of vouchers and prescription submitted by the claimant, expenditure on medicines could not be allowed and the Trial Court has granted, in committing grave error whereof, compensation of Rs. 12.000/- under this category. In this context, it may be pointed out that it will be too pedantic approach to ask the petitioner or expect the petitioner, who under pain and agony on account of injury caused in vehicular accident to preserve vouchers and producer the same in order to process his claim for medical expenditure incurred during this period. It will be too wild to accept the contention of the appellants on this count. The Trial Court has awarded Rs. 15.000/- for pain and suffering and further Rs. 15,000/- for disfiguration and loss of amenities of life, besides Rs. 5.000/- for special diet, Rs. 5,000/- for transportation and Rs. 5,000/- in respect of attendants, Rs. 36,000/- under the head of present and future loss of income. The Trial Court has awarded Rs. 15.000/- for pain and suffering and further Rs. 15,000/- for disfiguration and loss of amenities of life, besides Rs. 5.000/- for special diet, Rs. 5,000/- for transportation and Rs. 5,000/- in respect of attendants, Rs. 36,000/- under the head of present and future loss of income. These amounts have been awarded by the Trial Court after taking into consideration special and different circumstances in respect of the claimant. The argument put across by the appellants counsel that the compensation awarded is on higher side, is without substance and does not merit acceptance Another limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal has not considered and taken note of the certified copy of the judgment of the Criminal Court acquitting the accused, though placed on record. An identical matter came up for consideration before the High Court at Calcutta, 1999ACJ 1042, and it was held as under: "Furthermore, a judgment of acquittal passed by a criminal court is not very much relevant for the purpose of grant of compensation in motor Accidental case filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 11. In view of the ratio of the above said judgment, it, therefore, follows that the acquittal of driver of the offending vehicle in criminal trial has no relevance in adjudication of the claimants application. The debate addressed by the appellants counsel on this score also stands dispelled accordingly. No other point has been urged and debated by the appellants counsel. In this view of the matter, the award passed by the Tribunal is not found invalid in any manner so as to invite interference in this appeal. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal except reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9% payable by the appellants. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. ln the peculiar circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.