RAJESH TANDON, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 13. 4. 2004, passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Pithoragarh, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellant. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that claimant filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, for grant of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The claimant petitioner alleged that he sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 15. 6. 2002 at 11. 00 a. m. on Dashaiethal-Khirmandey road at Syudachami involving jeep No. UP-03 4054. The claimant submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep. He was admitted to the hospital at Gangolihat from where he was referred to the District hospital at Pithoragarh. Considering the seriousness of injuries the claimant was further referred to Safdarjang Hospital, new Delhi. He remained hospitalised from 21. 6. 2002 to 13. 7. 2002. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident he has become permanently disabled. ( 3 ) THE claim petition was contested by the owner of the jeep as well as by the insurer. Both parties had filed their respective written statements. The owner of the vehicle denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had submitted in its written statement that the jeep in question was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the claims Tribunal framed as many as three issues. Issue No. 1 relates to the fact as to whether Thakur Prasad sustained injuries in an accident on 15. 6. 2002 at about 11 a. m. on Dashaiethal-Khirmandey Road at syudachami, due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. UP-03 4054. The issue was answered in affirmative and it was held that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver. ( 5 ) ISSUE No. 2 was framed to the effect that whether driver of the jeep had a valid driving licence. The issue was answered in affirmative and it was held that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver. ( 5 ) ISSUE No. 2 was framed to the effect that whether driver of the jeep had a valid driving licence. This issue was decided in affirmative and it was held that the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. ( 6 ) ISSUE No. 3 was framed regarding the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the claimant petitioner in lump sum as compensation. Feeling aggrieved the claimant petitioner has preferred the present appeal. ( 7 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. ( 8 ) THE grievance of the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal has not calculated the amount of compensation properly and the compensation awarded is inadequate. The claimant has become permanently disabled due to fracture of his spinal cord and as such the compensation awarded to the petitioner is not at all sufficient. ( 9 ) SO far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, he has stated in his statement on oath that he was working in the Forest department and was getting Rs. 1,222 per month. He was also doing agriculture and horticulture and by all means he was getting rs. 5,000 per month. Regarding the expenses incurred on his treatment, the claimant deposed that he remained hospitalised in District Hospital, Pithoragarh from 15. 6. 2002 to 20. 6. 2002 and thereafter he was referred to the Safdarjang Hospital, new Delhi. He remained hospitalised there from 21. 6. 2002 to 13. 7. 2002. He incurred expenses on his attendant, conveyance, medicines and the X-ray, M. R. I. , etc. The claimant has stated in his statement that medical Board on 29. 7. 2002 declared him 100 per cent handicapped. He also filed certificate to this effect. ( 10 ) THE claimant has also examined Dr. H. S. Khadayat, PW 2. He has stated that on 15. 6. 2002 injured Thakur Prasad was admitted in the District Hospital, Pithoragarh. On X-ray of the injured he found that left clavical bone and right neck humerus was fractured. His L-1 vertebra was also fractured due to which his legs had become senseless. H. S. Khadayat, PW 2. He has stated that on 15. 6. 2002 injured Thakur Prasad was admitted in the District Hospital, Pithoragarh. On X-ray of the injured he found that left clavical bone and right neck humerus was fractured. His L-1 vertebra was also fractured due to which his legs had become senseless. This witness has stated that considering the critical condition of the injured he was referred to higher medical centre. Dr. H. S. Khadayat further stated that on 29. 7. 2002 Medical Board of the claimant was held at C. M. O. office, Pithoragarh and he was declared 100 per cent disabled for the entire life. ( 11 ) SO far as the compensation towards pecuniary loss is concerned, at the lime of accident claimant was 35 years old and he was getting Rs. 1,222 per month as wages. Thus applying a multiplier of 16 on his annual income the pecuniary loss comes to rs. 1,222 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 2,34,624. Thus the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 2,34,624 as compensation for the loss of income. ( 12 ) SO far as compensation for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering is concerned the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar Mishru v. P. Muniain babu, 1999 ACJ 1105 (SC), has held as under:"some guesswork has to be applied while assessing the loss. This court in r. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India)Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), had held: (9) Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. The pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas the non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate the two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i)medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate the two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i)medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they include: (i) damages towards mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i. e. , on account of injury claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i. e. , on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration, disappointment and the mental stress in life. ' it was further held that whenever a tribunal or court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability caused. However, all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standards. While assessing damages, the court cannot base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent are inevitable. " ( 13 ) IN the present case the appellant has become permanently disabled and paraplegic on account of injury and damage caused to his spinal cord. The appellant is entitled to gel Rs. 1,00,000 for medical care, pain and suffering during the period of treatment besides Rs. 35,000 which he incurred on his treatment. The petitioner is also entitled to get Rs. 1,00,000 as the compensation for loss of expectation of life, disappointment, frustration and mental stress. Thus the petitioner is entitled to gel a total sum of Rs. 4,69,624 as compensation, which we round up to Rs. 4,70,000. ( 14 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed by modifying the order impugned holding the appellant entitled to a compensation of rs. 4,70,000 with pendente life and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .