Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The injured claimant-appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity, the Act) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for brevity, the MACT) in its award dated 15.9.1990. There is no challenge to the findings recorded by the MACT to the effect that the accident took place on 15.8.1987 solely due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HYL-2375 by its driver Mohar Singh respondent No. 2 and that the injured claimant-appellant had suffered serious injuries in the aforementioned accident. It has also not been disputed that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. B ranch Office, Karnal. The MACT further recorded the findings that the injured claimant-appellant has suffered the following injuries:- i) Bilateral fracture shaft femur; ii) C.S.F. Rhinorrhbea and recurrent menimitus; iii) Intestinal perforation and fracture of the shaft femur; iv) 1-1/2 inches shortening of both thighs and reduction in height to that extent; 25% permanent disability. The claimant would not be able to run as his left knee is slightly unstable and his right knee was having restriction of at least 10 degrees which also affected his walking. He would not be able to sit cross legs; v) Head injury with pheumocephalous with fracture both femur with peritonitus with perforeation of SJ with fracture mandible and maila; vi) The teeth lining was disturbed and a fracture of mandible; vii) The fracture of the face; viii) Further treatment required for are-fracture of in axila and reduction and refixation; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2. On account of personal injury under the pecuniary head, the M.A.C.T. has awarded on the basis of the bills presented an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as nursing expenses. On account of permanent disability a meagre amount of Rs. 25,000/-and for disfiguration of face, pain and sufferings, special diet, future medical expenses including conveyance charges another amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded. 3. It is appropriate to mention that after the accident, the injured claimant-appellant was taken to Civil Hospital, Panipat. When his position deteriorated, he was removed to Sehgal Neurologial Research Institute, New Delhi, where he remained admitted upto 7.9.1987. Then he was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, where he remained admitted upto 20.10.1987. 25,000/- has been awarded. 3. It is appropriate to mention that after the accident, the injured claimant-appellant was taken to Civil Hospital, Panipat. When his position deteriorated, he was removed to Sehgal Neurologial Research Institute, New Delhi, where he remained admitted upto 7.9.1987. Then he was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, where he remained admitted upto 20.10.1987. He has to be re-admitted on 30.10,3987 and was discharged on 4.11.1987. The injured claimant-appellant has also claimed that he is suffering fits of epilepsy and has lost concentration as well as memory. 4. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the injured claimant-appellant has argued that the M.A.C.T. has awarded nothing on account of loss of business. He has drawn my attention to pages 511 and 519 to 521 of the record of M.A.C.T. At page 511, statement of Rajesh PW-9 has been recorded wherein he has stated that before the accident he had established his independent business styled as Rajesh Traders, Smalkha which has to be closed and his income from the aforementioned business had been Rs. 5,000/- p.m. prior to the accident. The aforementioned business is lost as he is incapable of doing any work, During his cross-examination he reiterated the aforementioned statement. At page 519 Siri Parkash PW-10 has been subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company, where again the fact of business undertaken by the injured claimant-appellant has been mentioned with a further elaboration that the firm was registered with the Sales Tax Department. 5. The learned counsel has also submitted that the marriage prospectus of the injured claimant-appellant has also been adversely affected on account of disfiguration of face, shortening of legs and uneven walk. In that regard he has drawn my attention to the statement made by Siri Parkash PW-10 and his cross-examination. Siri Parkash PW-10 is father of Rajesh who was admittedly unmarried. 6. The learned counsel has also argued that nothing has been awarded with regard to future prospectus, special diet as the injured claimant-appellant was merely 21 years of age at the time of accident. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Parvinder Singh v. Harsh Kumar Trihan and Ors., (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 519 where the injured had 14 per cent permanent disability and this court has awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Parvinder Singh v. Harsh Kumar Trihan and Ors., (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 519 where the injured had 14 per cent permanent disability and this court has awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. 7. Mr. N.K. Khosla, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has opposed the argument raised by learned counsel for the injured claimant-appellant and has supported the award. According to the learned counsel, no enhancement deserves to be granted to the injured claimant-appellant. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the record. I find that the impugned award passed by the MACT suffers from patent illegality as it has awarded very meagre amount to the injured claimant-appellant who was a young man of 21 years on the date of accident i.e. 15.8.1987. The MACT is primarily influenced by the pecuniary damages without taking into consideration the non pecuniary damages. Under the Heads of pecuniary damages, the MACT has awarded the expenses which are actually incurred i.e. a sum of Rs. 70,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- for two nurses, Rs. 25,000/- for 25 per cent permanent disability on account of shortening of his legs and for disfiguration of his face an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The MACT has summoned up the aforementioned amount by observing as under:- "So, the claimant is entitled to the following amount:- i) Compensation for expenses incurred by the Claimant during the course of his treatment =Rs. 70,000/-. ii) Amount paid to Nurse during staying the hospital = Rs. 5,000/- iii) Compensation for shortening of his both the legs by 1-1/2 inches = Rs. 25,000/-. iv) Compensation on account of pains and sufferings, past, present and future, for disfiguration of face and other disability in working, squatting, moving, loss of memory, loss of earning, expenses spent on conveyance charges past, present and future and for future treatment = Rs. 25,000/-." 9 The question where compensation deserves to be awarded under the non-pecuniary heads of damages has come up for consideration of the Supreme Court in numerous cases. In the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001-3)129 P.L.R. 9 (S.C.) involving the accident caused by demonstrating fire which engulfed the VIP Pandal at the TISCO factory premises when the birth anniversary of Sir Jamshedji Tata was celebrated. In the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001-3)129 P.L.R. 9 (S.C.) involving the accident caused by demonstrating fire which engulfed the VIP Pandal at the TISCO factory premises when the birth anniversary of Sir Jamshedji Tata was celebrated. The Supreme Court made observations with regard to the question of damages for personal injuries. It has recognised various heads of compensation including the loss of matrimonial prospectus and earning capacity and many other areas for which the damages are required to be awarded. The guidance is available in the following observations made by the Supreme Court:- "In examining the question of damages for personal injury, it is axiomatic that pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages are required to be taken into account. In case of pecuniary damages, loss of earning or earning capacity, medical, hospital and nursing expenses, the loss of matrimonial prospectus, if proved, are required to be considered. In the case of non-pecuniary losses, loss of expectation of life, loss of amenities or capacity for enjoying life, loss of impairment of physiological functions, impairment or loss of anatomical structures or body tissues, pain and suffering and mental suffering are to be considered. But for arriving at a particular figure under each of the aforesaid heads, the claimant is duty-bound to produce relevant materials, on the basis of which a determination would be made, as to what would be the best compensation...." 10. For the aforementioned principles reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 298 and two judgments of this Court in Inderjit Kaur v. Punjab State, (1985-1)87 P.L.R. 521 and Sawatantra Kumar Lamba v. Mrs. Sheela Didi and Ors., (1987-2)92 P.L.R. 1. In the case of Shashendra Lahri v. UNICEF, (1997)11 S.C.C. 446 where the MACT has awarded to a boy of 17 years a sum of Rs. 58,000/-, the Supreme Court had enhanced the same to Rs. 4 lacs with interest at the rate of 8%. He was a student of B.Com and suffered bone injuries requiring bone grafting. 11. In the case of Parvinder Singh (supra), this Court after considering Various judgments has awarded a sum of Rs. 58,000/-, the Supreme Court had enhanced the same to Rs. 4 lacs with interest at the rate of 8%. He was a student of B.Com and suffered bone injuries requiring bone grafting. 11. In the case of Parvinder Singh (supra), this Court after considering Various judgments has awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to a student of Mechanical Engineering who remained as indoor patient for 47 days and the injuries suffered by him were far less serious than those suffered by the injured claimant-appellant. This Court has calculated the compensation by observing as under: "It is obvious that the award is on the lower side. LA Mechanical Engineer will have to face a lot of pecuniary losses in future, as he would not be in a position to get a good job. His right hand is permanently affected. He cannot write fluently. His grip power is also impaired. He cannot enjoy the amenities of life as his face is disfigured. His power of mastication is also lowered. All these sufferings he will have to undergo throughout his life. So far as future losses are concerned, a multiplier is to be applied. Hence, in my considered view the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- for loss of matrimonial prospectus, Rs. 40,000/- for permanent disability, Rs. 50,000/- for special diet, transport, attendant and medical expenses, and Rs. 80,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life i.e. in total Rs .2,00,000/- under the above heads, So far as his future prospects are concerned he is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4 lacs, The appellant is entitled to recover interests on the amount of Rs. 2 lacs at the rate of 12 per cent per annum awarded under different heads from the date of filing of the claim petition. In so far as the award of Rs. 2 lacs for future prospectus is concerned, he will not be entitled to charge any interest on it. The appellant shall also be entitled to receive costs." 12. It is also well settled that much of calculation remained in the realm of conjectures and surmises because there are so many imponderables to make objective assessment. 2 lacs for future prospectus is concerned, he will not be entitled to charge any interest on it. The appellant shall also be entitled to receive costs." 12. It is also well settled that much of calculation remained in the realm of conjectures and surmises because there are so many imponderables to make objective assessment. Therefore, it is the over all picture that matters and the duty of the Court is to assess the loss suffered as best as it can. 13. If the approach adopted by the MACT is examined in the light of the principles stated above, then no doubt is left that the award of the compensation is on extremely lower side, The injured claimant-appellant deserves to be awarded at least Rs. 2 lacs for 25% permanent disability suffered by him. He also deserves to be awarded at least a minimum amount of Rs. one lacs for the loss of business prospects as there is ample evidence on record to record a finding that there was loss of business prospectus and the matrimonial prospectus. Accordingly, the award of the MACT is modified by enhancing the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded for shortening of 1egs to Rs. 21 acs. The total amount of the award comes to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The award of the MACT on other counts is confirmed. The final picture which emerges is as follows;- 1. Compensation for expenses incurred by the injured = Rs. 70,000/- claimant-appellant for his treatment. 2. Nursing expenses = Rs. 5,000/- 3. Compensation on account of pain and sufferings = Rs. 25,000/- 4. Compensation in lieu of 25% of permanent disability = Rs. 2 lacs including shortening of 1-1/2" of height, impairment of mastication working and walking. 5. For loss of matrimonial prospects = Rs. 1 lac 6. For loss of business prospects = Rs. 1 lac 14. The aforementioned compensation shall also earn interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 15.2.1988. 15. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.