Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.- On 20.06.1991 while the appellant was sweeping the street in Jaipur, she was hit by a car belonging to Respondent No. 2. Consequently, she suffered nine injuries out of which two were of grievous nature and seven were simple in nature. Not only her leg was broken, but more importantly her knee suffered disability to the extent of 40%. Resultantly, she could neither walk, nor stand, nor climb the staircases, nor run if need so arose. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (henceforth referred to as The Tribunal), for compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,82,000/-. In reply, the Insurance Company contended that the driver did not have a valid licence. Further, according to it, the accident was caused because of the negligence of appellant herself . 3. In order to prove her case, the claimant examined herself and Dr. Mukut Sharma as a witness. The Insurance Company did not examine a single witness. 4. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide award dated 31.01.1995 the learned Tribunal passed an award for merely Rs. 30,000/-in favour of the claimant. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the present appeal before us. 5. Mr. K.N. Tewari, learned Counsel for the appellant, has raised four contentions; firstly, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation in the category of “pain and agony”. Secondly, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the “future discomfort”. Thirdly, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the “future loss of income”. Lastly, according to Doctor Sharma the appellant has suffered disability to the extent of 40% and considering the fact that she is a sweeperess by profession, the efficiency of her working would be adversely affected as her leg would not permit her to stand or to walk properly. Therefore, according to him the compensation should be enhanced. 6. Mr. Vinod Tyagi, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company has supported the impugned award. According to him sufficient compensation has been paid under the category of “pain and agony” in accordance with II Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the compensation is a reasonable one. Moreover, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation for “future discomfort” to the appellant. Therefore, the award need not be disturbed. 7. According to him sufficient compensation has been paid under the category of “pain and agony” in accordance with II Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the compensation is a reasonable one. Moreover, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation for “future discomfort” to the appellant. Therefore, the award need not be disturbed. 7. We have not only heard the contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties, but have also examined the impugned award. We have also scanned the oral and the documentary evidence available on record. 8. The appellant is certainly a sweeperess whose entire job depends on her ability to walk up and down the streets to clean the neighborhood. Hence, the entire job depends on her ability to move and stand while she works. According to the testimony of Dr. Mukut Sharma, AW . 1, the appellant suffered a fracture of her leg for which she was confined for three months during recovery. She has also suffered a permanent disability of 40% in her knee. Thus, naturally, due to her injuries she would be unable to walk properly and to discharge her duties. Since, she would not be able to bend her knee or to climb the staircases, the injuries would also affect her personal day to day life. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 1995 ACJ, 366 the Honble Supreme Court bifurcated the compensation payable to a victim in an accident into pecuniary and non-pecuniary classes. While the pecuniary damages would include expenses incurred by the claimant such as medical attendant, loss of earning and other material loss. The non-pecuniary damages would include first, the damages for mental and physical loss, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future. Secondly, the damage to compensate for the loss of amenities of the life which may include a variety of matter i.e., inability to walk, run or sit. Thirdly, the damages for loss of expectation of life, little inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration and mental stress of life. 9. In the present case, while passing the award, the learned Tribunal has neither appreciated the adverse effect of the injuries on her professional and personal life of the claimant, nor imagined the discomfort, hardship, the frustration and mental stress in the claimants life. In the case of Bheem Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Gaur & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. 9. In the present case, while passing the award, the learned Tribunal has neither appreciated the adverse effect of the injuries on her professional and personal life of the claimant, nor imagined the discomfort, hardship, the frustration and mental stress in the claimants life. In the case of Bheem Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Gaur & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 100/1996 decided on 211.1997, this Court dealt with a case of 11 years child who suffered a disability to the extent of 14%. The Court was pleased to enhance the amount of award from Rs. 45,000/-to Rs. 1,10,000/-. 10. Considering the factors laid-down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (Supra), and by this High Court, we are of the firm opinion that a compensation of merely Rs. 30,000/-is pittance. Therefore, while allowing the present appeal, we enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 30,000/-to Rs. 1,50,000/-and modify the award dated 31.01.1995 accordingly. The other terms and conditions of the impugned award shall be maintained.