JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT Case No. 72 of 2003 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,34,964.80 in favour of the Respondent No. 1/claimant. 2. The fact leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the claimant/Respondent No. 1, an upper division clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Mizoram, has sustained injury arising out of an accident occurred on 22.12.2002 involving Motor bike bearing Registration No. MZ-01/A/7160 driven by the Respondent No. 2, for which he was hospitalized from 23.12.2002 to 1.1.2003 and was operated upon on 28.12.2002, for fracture of elbow (L), which was certified by the doctor as 12% permanent disability. The learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,35,960/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the filing of the application till the date of realization and since the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by the insurance policy issued by the Appellant company, asked the Appellant to satisfy the award. The learned tribunal has passed the said awarded on the following break up: 3. We have heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and also Mr. H. Lalianzuala Sailo, learned Counsel for the claimant Respondent No. 1. None appears for the owner/Respondent No. 2 in spite of service of notice. 4. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the evidence of the claimant adduced before the learned tribunal, has submitted that the claimant has himself admitted that he is a permanent employee under the Government of Mizoram being an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. and has not sustained any loss of income as the Earned leave due to him was granted when he was in hospital and took rest in terms of the advice of the doctor and therefore, he cannot claim any amount as compensation for loss of income. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the claimant has also admitted in his evidence that the medical expenses claimed by him in the claim petition has in fact been reimbursed by the Government as he is entitled to the same being a Government employee. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the claimant has also admitted in his evidence that the medical expenses claimed by him in the claim petition has in fact been reimbursed by the Government as he is entitled to the same being a Government employee. In view of the said categorical statement of the claimant, the learned Counsel submits that the claimant Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal except under the heading of non-pecuniary damages. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the tribunal has erred in law in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,34,964/- being the loss of income because of the permanent disability as certified by the doctor though the claimant has himself admitted that he is still serving as the upper division clerk and there was no loss of income for the injury sustained by him arising out of accident. Therefore, the award passed by the learned tribunal is required to be interfered with. 5. Mr. H. Lalianzuala Sailo, learned Counsel for the claimant Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the tribunal has rightly passed the award of compensation of Rs. 2,35,960/- as, even if no loss of income is suffered by the claimant, as he is a Government servant, he is entitled to be compensated under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act. According to the learned Counsel the claimant is also entitled to non-pecuniary damages, such as damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life, damages for loss of expectation of life on account of injury; inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. Hence according to the learned Counsel the quantum of compensation has rightly been fixed by the learned tribunal even assuming that there cannot be any award for loss of income as the Petitioner is a Government servant and is still working as UDC. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on B. Anandhi v. R. Latha and another reported in 2002 (2) TAC 260 (Mad). 6. We have considered rival submission put forwarded by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the records of MACT case No. 72 of 2003. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on B. Anandhi v. R. Latha and another reported in 2002 (2) TAC 260 (Mad). 6. We have considered rival submission put forwarded by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the records of MACT case No. 72 of 2003. It appears from the records that the claimant has filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 22.12.2002 involving motor bike bearing Registration No. MZ-01A-7160 belonging to the Respondent No. 2. Since the said vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company, the said company was also added as Opposite Party No. 2. It is evident from the claim petition that the claimant is an employee of the Government of Mizoram and working as UDC in the office of the Chief Engineer P.W.D., Zone-II and his monthly income from salary was Rs. 10,879/- and he was 42 years old at the relevant point of time. The insurance company, Appellant on receipt of the notice entered appearance before the learned tribunal and has filed written statement denying the claim of the claimant/Respondent No. 1. The owner, present Respondent No. 2, did not contested the claim of the claimant before the learned tribunal. The insurance company has filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking permission of the learned tribunal to contest the claim on or any of the grounds that are available to the owner of the vehicle apart from the grounds available to it under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act and the said permission was granted by the learned tribunal vide order dated 16.9.2004. 7. The Respondent No. 1 claimant in support of his claim has examined himself and have exhibited the following documents: Ext (c)-1 is the application for the claim of compensation filed by him. Ext (c)-1 (a) is his signature. Ext (c)-2 is his delay birth certificate issued by the Register of Births and Deaths, mission Vengthlang showing that his date of birth was 1st April, 1960. Ext (c)-3 is the Medical certificate issued by Dr. Thangchungnunga showing that he suffered permanent disability upto 12%. Ext (c)-4 is the Police report issued by Assistant Sub-Inspector Lalramngaia. Ext (c)-5 is the accident inspection report issued by Ialthankima, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Aizawl, Mizoram. Ext (c)-3 is the Medical certificate issued by Dr. Thangchungnunga showing that he suffered permanent disability upto 12%. Ext (c)-4 is the Police report issued by Assistant Sub-Inspector Lalramngaia. Ext (c)-5 is the accident inspection report issued by Ialthankima, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Aizawl, Mizoram. Ext (c)-6 is the Discharge Card issued by the Orthopaedic department of the Civil Hospital, Aizawl showing that he was admitted on 23rd December, 2002 and was discharged on 1st January, 2003. Ext (c)-7(a) to 7(i) are the Cash Memos showing the expenditure incurred for medicines etc. Ext (c)-8 is the copy of order issued by the Engineering Officer to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Zone II, Mizoram, Aizawl showing grant of earned leave for 45 days on medical grounds granted to him. Ext (c)-9 is the medical certificate issued by the department of Orthopaedics, Civil Hospital, Aizawl showing that period of rest for 45 days which is considered necessary. Ext (c)-10 is his last pay certificate showing that his total emoluments is Rs. 10,878/-. Ext (c)-11 is the driving licence of Michael Malsawmkina issued on 7th December, 2000. Ext (c)-12 is the copy of certificate of registration in respect of Bike No. MZ-01/A-7160. Ext (c)-13 is the copy of Insurance Policy No. 30502/3113/01581/99 issued by the United Insurance Company Limited in respect of the said bike. The claimant deposed that it is a fact that he was not deposing falsely. 8. The Respondent No. 1 claimant in his deposition has categorically stated that he is an UDC working in the office of the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Zone-II, Government of Mizoram and is still working in the said capacity. He has further stated that the leave taken by him due to the injury sustained arising out of the accident was all Earned Leave and has not suffered any loss of income due to the accident. The claimant has further stated in his evidence that though he has claimed the medical expenses incurred by him for treatment, in fact such medical expenses have already been reimbursed by the department as his entitled to the same. Regarding the injury sustained by him the claimant has deposed that as a result of the accident he suffered fracture on the left elbow, for which he was hospitalized in Civil Hospital on 23.12.2002 and continued to be treated there till 1.1.2003. Regarding the injury sustained by him the claimant has deposed that as a result of the accident he suffered fracture on the left elbow, for which he was hospitalized in Civil Hospital on 23.12.2002 and continued to be treated there till 1.1.2003. It is the further statement of the claimant in his deposition that because of his grievous injury, which has been certified by the doctor as 12% permanent disablement, he has to undergo an operation once again in the near future. 9. The insurance company Appellant also examined one witness namely Dilip Kr. De, the Assistant Administrative Officer, who has stated in his deposition that there was no loss of income of the claimant/Respondent No. 1 as he is still serving as UDC in the P.W.D. under the Government of Mizoram and the claimant is also not entitled to any amount towards medical expenses as the same has already been reimbursed by the Government of Mizoram. 10. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, provides for filing of an application for compensation by the person who has sustained injury. The learned Tribunal under Section 168 of the Act is required to pass an award determining the amount of compensation which appears it to be just. In B. Anandhi v. R. Latha and another reported in 2002 (2) TAC 260 (Mad) a Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that because the claimant was on leave for the particular period it cannot be the ground for disentitling him to get compensation for loss of earning for that period. Since no reasoning has been recorded by the Madras High Court to arrive at the said finding, we are unable to accept the said finding. We are also in respectful disagreement of the said finding in view of the fact that the claimant in an injury case can claim compensation under the heading pecuniary loss only if there is loss of income or there is any amount spent towards the medical expenses etc. 11. The meaning of the word just according to the Black's Law Dictionary is: legally right; lawful; equitable. In Law Lexicon by T.P. Mukherjee just is described as follows: The term just is derived from the Latin word Justus. It has various meanings and its meaning is often governed by the context. 11. The meaning of the word just according to the Black's Law Dictionary is: legally right; lawful; equitable. In Law Lexicon by T.P. Mukherjee just is described as follows: The term just is derived from the Latin word Justus. It has various meanings and its meaning is often governed by the context. Just may apply in nearly all of its senses, either to ethics or law, denoting something which is morally right and fair and sometimes that which is right and fair according to positive law. It connotes reasonableness and something conforming to rectitude and justice, something equitable fair. In Corpus Juris Secundum, the meaning of the word just is given as follows: The term 'just' is derived from the Latin word 'justice'; 40 is has various meaning, 41 and its meaning is often governed by the context; 42 As an Adjective 'just' may apply in nearly all of its senses either to ethics or law denoting something which is morally right and fair and sometimes that which is right and fair according to positive law; 43 It connotes reasonableness; 44 and denotes justification and excuse; 45 It has been defined variously as meaning adequate; 46 conforming to, or constant with what is legal or lawful; 47 conformable to laws; 48 conformable to rectitude and justice; 49 conformed to rules or principles of justice; 50 conforming to the requirements of rights or of positive law; 51 correct; 52 right; 53 legally right; 54 rightful; 55 right in law or ethics; 56 dues; 57 lawful; 58 legitimate; 59 equitable, 60 fair, honest; 62 true; 63 impractice; 64 in accordance with the law and justice; 65 not doing wrong to any; 66 not transgressing the requirements of truth and propriety; 67 probable; 68 reasonable; 69 rendering to each to each his dues; 70 upright; 71 violating no right or obligation; 72 well founded; 73 as an adverb, As an adverb of time the word 'just' is equivalent to "at this moment; 74 or the "least possible time since; 75 when used with references to distance it means barely; 76 closely; 77 nearly; 78 scarcely, 79 The word, 'just', therefore, denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral field. The said largeness is of course cannot be arbitrary and it is restricted by the consciousness which is reasonable and equitable. The said largeness is of course cannot be arbitrary and it is restricted by the consciousness which is reasonable and equitable. The tribunal though has the wider discrimination in granting just compensation, it has to be within the limitation i.e. it must be equitable, fair and reasonable. 12. Under the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act the learned Tribunal is therefore, required to pass an award compensating the injured person which is just, fair and reasonable. In determining the quantum of compensation the learned Tribunal cannot act arbitrarily and such award must be based on certain principle based on materials establishing the link between the loss incurred and the compensation to be awarded. The amount of compensation payable under the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act for cause of bodily injury to the person arising out of the motor vehicle, is to be so assessed that the person concerned can be adequately compensated and such compensation shall not, however, be punitive and at the same time the same does not become a source of profit to the person effected. 13. In a death case, the Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that the multiplier method is the best method of determining the compensation. Applying the multiplier method the loss of dependency is ascertained basing on the monthly income of the deceased and also taking into account the amount which he would have spent on his own. In a personal injury case in examining the question of damages, 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 prospects, 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 or impairment of physiological functions, impairment or loss of anatomical structures or body tissues, pain and suffering and mental suffering are to be considered. 14. Therefore, under the heading of pecuniary loss, unless there is loss of income or expenditure towards medical treatment is proved, no compensation can be awarded by the learned Tribunal. In the instant Case the learned tribunal has quantified an amount of Rs. 14. Therefore, under the heading of pecuniary loss, unless there is loss of income or expenditure towards medical treatment is proved, no compensation can be awarded by the learned Tribunal. In the instant Case the learned tribunal has quantified an amount of Rs. 2,35,946.80/- being the loss of income on the basis of the last pay certificate issued by the Government authority, though the claimant has categorically stated in his evidence that there was absolutely no loss of income as he is still serving in the capacity of UDC and the period for which he was on leave was the earned leave and therefore, there was no loss of income. That being the position the learned tribunal has erred in holding that there was loss of income, more so when admittedly the claimant has not suffered any loss of income. 15. The Respondent No. 1/claimant in his deposition has stated that he has suffered fractured injury on the left elbow, for which he was operated upon and he was also advised by the doctor that a further operation will be required in near future. Apart from that the claimant/Respondent No. 1 has also stated that he was hospitalized with effect from 23.12.2002 to 1.1.2003. That part of the evidence has not been challenged by the insurance company, Appellant, during cross-examination or leading any evidence. Hence remain unrebutted. The doctor who examined, the claimant also certified that the claimant has suffered injury which resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 12%, therefore, it is, evident that the claimant is entitled to damage under the non-pecuniary head i.e. for loss of amenities, impairment or loss of anatomical structures and body tissues, pain and suffering and mental suffering as the claim ant had to suffer because of injury. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and also considering the fact that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 12%, in our fair estimation lump sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- would be the just compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant/Respondent No. 1. 16. In view of the fact that we modified the award passed by the learned tribunal to the extent that the Respondent No. 1/claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- would be the just compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant/Respondent No. 1. 16. In view of the fact that we modified the award passed by the learned tribunal to the extent that the Respondent No. 1/claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation, which amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing claim petition till date of realization, the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount awarded by this Court after deducting the amount already deposited, byway of statutory deposit before the Registry and any other amount deposited before the learned tribunal, within the period of 1 (one) month from the date of this judgment. The claimant/Respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount from the learned tribunal and also shall be at liberty to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the Appellant before the registry of this Court. 17. In the view of the above the appeal is partly allied as indicated above, no costs. Appeal allowed.