The above three appeals involving similar nature of controversy and arising out of the same order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, dated 28th March2000, are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The submissions made on behalf of appellants in all the appeals are that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of injuries sustained by the appellants, is neither just nor reasonable. They have accordingly prayed for enhancement of compensation. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellants sustained injuries in a vehicular accident, that took place on 20th June, 1993 while travelling in the offending bus bearing registration No. JKU 1287, due to rash and negligent driving, as a result of which, the said bus fell into a deep ditch causing injuries to the passengers including the appellants. The vehicle in question admittedly was insured with United India Insurance Company on the date of accident. 1. CIMA 80/2000 Tosh Ram Versus Sukhdev Singh and Ors. 4. In the appeal filed by Tosh Ram, the short submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is that he is a carpenter by profession. It is submitted that the appellant is not able to work on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which resulted in 15 percent permanent disability as assessed by Dr Anil Gupta after examination. It is also stated that the doctor on examination found that he is an old case of fracture clavicle left with fracture humerus right with radial nerve palsy. The doctor further opined that the patient has stiffness of right shoulder and elbow joint. The permanent disability has been assessed at 15 percent. The appellant further stated that the doctor had also certified about his inability to do the job of carpenter as the appellant used to do prior to his disability. The sole grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has not adequately and reasonably assessed the compensation under different heads in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident and the extent of disability occasioned to him. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- as medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- for disablement. It is not in dispute that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for ten days and was operated upon for fracture in his arm. 5. In this case, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/- as medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- for disablement. It is not in dispute that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital for ten days and was operated upon for fracture in his arm. 5. It is settled proposition of law that in case of injuries, the compensation is to be assessed and payable under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages and special damages. The pecuniary damages pertain to expenses actually incurred and capable of calculation in terms of money and non-pecuniary damages, however, are not capable of being assessed by arithmetical calculation. The non-pecuniary damages relate to loss of affection and love, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life and other alike matters on account of injuries sustained by the claimants. Whereas, pecuniary damages include expenses incurred on medical treatment, purchase of medicines, loss of earning besides others of like nature. In Kumar Iqbal v. H. Rehman Khan & Anr., 1996 ACJ 552, the injured sustained fracture of left ulna, fracture of left pubic symphysis, an injury to ulna nerve and other multiple lacerated injuries on the forearm and left arm resulting in 12 percent disability of the whole body. The compensation awarded was Rs. 37,400/- under various heads. This was enhanced to Rs. 59,500/-. Similarly in Palvinder Singh v. Harsh Kumar Trihan & Ors., 1996 ACJ 596, the claimant suffered permanent disability of 14 percent. He remained hospitalized for 47 days and underwent three operations. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was enhanced to Rs. 4,00,000/- in appeal. This included Rs. 30,000/- for loss of matrimonial prospects; Rs. 40,000/- for permanent disability; Rs. 50,000/- for special diet, transport, attendant and medical expenses; Rs. 2,00,000/- for future loss of earnings; and Rs. 80,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. 6. In the present case, looking to the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalization and the opinion of the doctor that the claimant-appellant is unable to pursue his profession as Carpenter as vigorously as he had been doing prior to the suffering of the disability, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in my view is on the lower side and thus, cannot be said to be either just or reasonable. The amount of compensation in this case, is therefore, enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. The amount of compensation in this case, is therefore, enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- on account of pain and sufferings; from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- for medical expenses; and from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 55,000/- for disablement and loss of earning capacity on account of disability suffered by the claimant. This appeal, as such, is allowed and the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is thus enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- to be payable by the Insurance Company to the claimant. 2. CIMA 81/2000 Beli Ram Versus Sukhdev Singh and Ors. 7. The appellant, Beli Ram, in CIMA 81/2000 was also one of the passengers traveling in the aforementioned offending vehicle at the time of accident alongwith other passengers. He also suffered injuries on his right arm and remained in the hospital for 5 days. He was examined by Dr A.K. Gupta, Ortho Surgeon, District Hospital, Udhampur. According to the doctor, the claimant suffered fracture in his right shoulder with Brachial Plexus injury. The doctor has given 25 % permanent disability of right arm on account of the injury suffered by the appellant, Beli Ram. The doctor further stated that on account of the disability, the working capacity of the appellant as a carpenter will definitely be reduced. It was further opined by the doctor that the patient would be unable to lift heavy weight with his right arm. The Tribunal in this case awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, which, according to the appellant, is neither just nor reasonable and also not in accord with the nature of injuries and extent of disability suffered by him. 8. While awarding compensation, the court is required to take into account the injuries sustained by the claimant, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, future prospects, agony suffered and the extent of disability affecting the capacity to work by the injured. The compensation to be awarded must commensurate with the injuries suffered by the claimant so as to appear as just and reasonable. In North-West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mallikarjun Sanganabasappa Shettar & Anr., 2002 ACJ 215, the Supreme Court of India awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant, who had suffered fracture on right wrist resulting in 25 percent disability. 9. The appellant, in the present case, sustained fracture and dislocation of right shoulder joint with Brachial Plexus injury. 1,00,000/- to the claimant, who had suffered fracture on right wrist resulting in 25 percent disability. 9. The appellant, in the present case, sustained fracture and dislocation of right shoulder joint with Brachial Plexus injury. The doctor had opined that the injured has suffered 25% permanent disability of right arm. It was further stated by the doctor that the working capacity of the injured claimant will definitely be reduced and he would be unable to lift heavy weight with his right arm. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- i.e. Rs. 5,000/- for medical attendance; Rs. 5,000/- for pain and sufferings; and Rs. 40,000/- for disablement, which, in my opinion, is neither just nor a reasonable compensation, as the same does not commensurate with the nature of injuries and the disability suffered by the appellant. The amount of compensation is, therefore, enhanced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- on account of medical expenses, from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for pain and sufferings; and from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 55,000/- on account of disability and loss of earning capacity. The appellant would also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for future loss of amenities of life. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal shall stand modified and instead of Rs. 50,000, as awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. One lac. 3. CIMA No. 88/2000 Deep Kumar Versus Sukhdev Singh and Ors. 10. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the material on record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, passed an award directing the Respondents-Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the institution of the Claim Petition till its final payment, of course, after adjusting the interim compensation, if already paid. Against the award aforesaid, this appeal has been preferred by the victim of the accident, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The victim appellant is a child of tender age, of four years, who sustained injuries while travelling in the offending vehicle, which met with an accident. The appellant claimed compensation under various heads in para No. 11 of the Claim Petition. 11. The victim appellant is a child of tender age, of four years, who sustained injuries while travelling in the offending vehicle, which met with an accident. The appellant claimed compensation under various heads in para No. 11 of the Claim Petition. It is stated that the compensation awarded does not commensurate with the nature of injuries and the extent of disability suffered by the claimant, thus, is neither just nor reasonable and, therefore, pleaded for its enhancement. It is further stated that though claim has been raised by the appellant under various heads, but the award given by the Court is niggard without taking into consideration the loss of prospects of marriage in good family, loss of enjoyment of life and longevity. It cannot be disputed that the claimant has suffered injuries in vehicular accident. It is stated in the evidence that he remained under treatment, in respect of Fracture Femur (Right) and fracture tibia left, in the Hospital for two months. Claimant has also suffered a shortening of left lower limb by 2 cms, and doctor has given permanent disability of 5% on account of these injuries. The Claimant has further expressed his aspirations of becoming a doctor or an engineer, of which he has been deprived of because of injuries. It is also stated that on account of shortening of a leg, left lower limb, he is rendered incapacitated to join Belt Force. 12. It is, undoubtedly, difficult to assess the exact amount of compensation in case of injury, for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. Whenever an amount is determined as compensation payable for any injury suffered during accident, the object is to compensate such injuries so far as money can compensate, because neither human suffering nor personal deprivation can be equated with money. Money can neither restore nor renew the broken and shattered physical frame. In broad spectrum, it may be said that some amount of sympathy linked with the extent of the disability and nature of injuries suffered, weigh with the Court to assess amount of compensation in cases of accidents. 13. Because of shortening of the leg, the appellant has become handicapped for the entire life. He will not be able to walk, run or sit properly. 13. Because of shortening of the leg, the appellant has become handicapped for the entire life. He will not be able to walk, run or sit properly. His normal longevity is shortened on account of the injury. Therefore, relying on the conventional principles of providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, the particular circumstances of the appellant including his age and unusual deprivation he has suffered, it should be reflected in the actual amount of compensation assessed to be just and reasonable. When compensation is to be awarded, affect of injuries on his future life has to be taken into account, besides other factors enumerated above. The appellant/claimant is, thus, awarded Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life on account of permanent disability, totaling Rs. 1,45,000/-, instead of Rs. 1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The compensation(s) awarded in all the above three appeals shall become payable to the appellants in their respective appeals by the Insurance Company with 9% interest from the date of filing of the Claim Petitions till its payment, including interim award(s), if already made. The amount awarded be deposited with the Registrar Judicial of this Court at Jammu within a period of two months. In case no deposit is made by the Insurance Company within the stipulated period, the rate of interest shall be 3% over and above the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal. 15. With the above modification of the award(s) of the Tribunal, all the three appeals stand disposed of, however, with no order as to costs.