JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') is for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 21.12.2004 in MAC No. 151 of 2003. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is that the claimant/Appellant filed application under Section 166 read with the Section 140 of the Act praying for grant of compensation on account of the injury sustained by him alleging that, on 15.5.2002 at about 11.45 a.m. while he was coming to Kobulong from Sungratsu on foot, the vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No. NLK-3686 belonging to the present Respondent No. 4 and driven by the present Respondent No. 3 in a reckless and negligent manner hit the Appellant causing fracture in his right leg and as a result of which he became disabled. The Appellant also claimed that he is a Goabura of Kobulong town and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month by doing private repairing work of sewing & knitting machines being a trained mechanic and because of the injury sustained he became permanently disabled and as such, cannot earn any more as mechanic. It has further been contended in the claim petition that the vehicle was insured by the present Respondent No. 1 by issuing a valid policy of insurance covering the risk of the third party. The claimant examined two witnesses namely claimant himself as well the doctor, who treated him at Dimapur in support of his claim. No witness was examined on behalf of the Insurance Company namely the present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though written statement was filed by them. The owner and the driver of the vehicle did not contest the proceeding either by filing written statement or by cross examining the claimant witness or by examining any witness on their behalf. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of evidences on record, both oral and documentary, passed the award awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousands), which includes medical expenditure Rs. 17,160/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 4.9.2003 till the date of payment. Hence the present appeal by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation for the bodily injury sustain by him. 3. I have heard Mr. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousands), which includes medical expenditure Rs. 17,160/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 4.9.2003 till the date of payment. Hence the present appeal by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation for the bodily injury sustain by him. 3. I have heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Counsel for the claimant/Appellant and Mr. B. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, despite service of notice. 4. Mr. Jamir, learned Counsel for the claimant/Appellant referring to the evidence of the claimant, who was examined as RW. 1 and the evidence of the doctor who treated the claimant and was examined as RW. 2, has submitted that though there is specific evidence on record relating to the injuries sustained by the claimant/Appellant as well as the disability suffered by him because of the accident occurred involving the vehicle in question and though there is evidence regarding the loss of income of the claimant/Appellant for such disablement, the learned Tribunal without considering the percentage of disablement suffered by the claimant/Appellant and without considering evidence of the witnesses in its proper perspective has rejected the claim of the claimant/Appellant that he suffered at least 50% disablement because of the injury sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 15.5.2002. The learned Counsel has further submitted that though the Appellant is entitled to the damages towards mental and physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life and also for loss of expectation of life, apart from medical expenses incurred by him as well as the loss of income, the learned Tribunal has awarded a paltry lump sum amount of Rs. 35,000/-, which includes the medical expenses of Rs. 17,160/-, without awarding any compensation towards the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages suffered by the claimant/Appellant excluding the medical expenses. The learned Counsel therefore, submits that it is a fit case where this Court may enhance the amount of compensation payable to the Appellant for the bodily injury suffered by him in the said accident. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) SCC 551 . 5. Mr. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1995 (1) SCC 551 . 5. Mr. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supporting the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal has submitted that the claimant/Appellant is not entitled to amount towards loss of income as the claimant/Appellant has failed to prove that there was any loss of income caused to him because of such injury and also has failed to prove his monthly income as mechanic by adducing cogent evidence, the learned Counsel therefore submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly refused to pass any award compensating the loss of income as there was no loss as such caused to the claimant/Appellant. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel that the claimant/Appellant has failed to prove that he suffered from any permanent disablement because of the injury sustained by him in the motor accident and the evidence of the doctor, who was examined as P.W.-2, being not reliable because of the fact that during cross examination he has stated that he certified the disability of the claimant/Appellant as 70% out of assumption and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the claimant/Appellant that there was permanent disablement caused to the claimant/Appellant because of the injury sustained by him. The learned Counsel has further submitted that though the learned Tribunal did not state the heads under which the amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded as compensation, it is evident that such amount includes the medical expenses of Rs. 17,160/- and amount payable towards non-pecuniary loss. 6. The claimant/Appellant in his application filed under Section 166 of the Act has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,49,000/- against the pecuniary damages i.e. loss of income, hiring charge, medical expenses, expenses for taking special diet and future medical expenses and also the diet. A claim of Rs. 40,000/-was also made towards the general damages i.e. non-pecuniary damages which includes compensation for mental/physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life and loss of expectation of life, thus, the claimant/Appellant in total has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,89,000/-. 7. A claim of Rs. 40,000/-was also made towards the general damages i.e. non-pecuniary damages which includes compensation for mental/physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life and loss of expectation of life, thus, the claimant/Appellant in total has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,89,000/-. 7. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award dated 21.12.2004 passed in MAC Case No. 151 of 2003 has held that the accident occurred on 15.5.2002 involving the motor vehicle bearing registration No. NLK-3686 belonging to the present Respondent No. 4, which was driven by the present Respondent No. 3 and due to rash and negligent driving by him accident took place causing bodily injury to the claimant/Appellant. It has further been held that the vehicle was duly insured by the present Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company at the relevant point of time. It has further been held by the learned Tribunal that vehicle was driven by the driver having valid driving license and the vehicle also had all valid permit etc. for plying the same. The said finding of fact have not been challenged either Insurance Company or by the owner or driver of the vehicle by filing any appeal, therefore, such finding of fact became final and conclusive. 8. As observed above, the claimant/Appellant has examined two witnesses namely the claimant himself as P.W. 1 and the Dr. Nokdang Jamir, who treated the claimant/Appellant in Dimapur as P.W. 2. Though the Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the claim of the claimant/Appellant, no evidence was led by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. 9. The claimant/Appellant, who was examined as P.W.-1 before the learned Tribunal in his deposition has stated that he spent more than Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing medicine and payment towards treatment fees etc. but could collect voucher for Rs. 17,160/- only. It has further been stated by the claimant/Appellant in his deposition that he was initially treated in Vivek Poly Clinic at Jorhat where he was admitted on 15.5.2002 and was discharged on 4.6.2002 thereby taking treatment as indoor patient in the hospital for about 20 (twenty) days. The claimant/Appellant also exhibited the discharge certificate issued by the Vivek Poly Clinic of Jorhat, whereby the injury of the claimant/Appellant was diagnosed was segmental fracture of right femur, fracture of Malleobas (right ankle) as well as fracture of 5 M/TB. The claimant/Appellant also exhibited the discharge certificate issued by the Vivek Poly Clinic of Jorhat, whereby the injury of the claimant/Appellant was diagnosed was segmental fracture of right femur, fracture of Malleobas (right ankle) as well as fracture of 5 M/TB. P.W.-1 in his deposition has further stated that after his discharge from the said Poly Clinic at Jorhat he was treated by the orthopedic surgeon Dr. Nokdang Jamir as he was not fully recovered from the injuries sustained by him, who upon examination has certified that the Appellant suffered from 70% disablement by issuing the medical treatment case summary dated 28.8.2003, which was exhibited as Exhibit P-2. During examination-in-chief, the claimant/Appellant has also stated that he was earning not less than 3000/- per month for repairing of knitting and sewing machine as he was a trained mechanic apart from his appointment as Goabura duly appointed by the Government, but because of the injury sustained by him in the accident his income has been curtailed as he became completely disabled. The monthly income of the claimant/Appellant has not been challenged by the insurance company by cross examining him. However, the loss of income of the claimant/Appellant and the nature of injury sustained has been challenged by the Insurance Company by putting suggestion that the claimant/Appellant did not sustain any permanent disability due to the accident and his income has not been affected because of the injury sustained in such accident. The Insurance Company also did not challenge the fact that the claimant/Appellant was in hospital at Jorhat for about 20 days and thereafter continued to receive treatment for the injury sustained by him including the treatment from the P.W. 2 namely Dr. Nokdang Jamir. 10. Dr. Nokdang Jamir, who was examined as P.W.-2 by the claimant/Appellant in support of his claim has deposed before the learned Tribunal that he treated the claimant/Appellant since the month of February, 2003 for the injuries of segmental fracture of right femur, fracture of Malleobas (right ankle) as well as fracture of 5 M/TB and he altogether visited his chamber four times with same complaint occasionally. This witness has further stated that as per his observation the patient suffered 70% disability for which he has exhibited the concerned certificate. This witness has further stated that as per his observation the patient suffered 70% disability for which he has exhibited the concerned certificate. During cross examination this witness has stated that the segmental fracture bones are united permanently but there is malunion of the bones which will surely cause complicacy in day today life. The doctor has also admitted that the assessment of 70% disability by him is his presumption only and not on approved basis, but at the same time has stated that the disability of the claimant/Appellant shall not be less than 50%. The doctor in his evidence has not stated anything whether such disability is permanent disability, which cannot be rectified after taking treatment or the claimant/Appellant can recover from such disability. 11. From the narration of the evidences on record it is thus evident that the claimant/Appellant was in hospital at Jorhat for about 20 days and he continued to receive treatment for the injury sustained by him in the accident occurred on 15.5.2002 at least up to February, 2003. The Appellant by producing the voucher has also proved that he has spent a sum of Rs. 17,160/- towards the medical expenses. Though the Appellant has claimed compensation for the amount the spent for hiring of vehicle, for taking special diet, the claimant/Appellant has not stated anything in his deposition in that regard and has therefore failed to prove that he has incurred any expenses towards hiring charge, for special diet. 12. As discussed above, the monthly income of the claimant/Appellant i.e. Rs. 3,000/- has not been challenged by the insurance company by cross examining the Appellant, therefore, the said version of the claimant/Appellant has to be accepted that is to say the monthly income of the claimant/Appellant as Rs. 3,000/- is to be accepted, there being no evidence contrary thereto. Admittedly the Appellant was in hospital at Jorhat for about 20 (twenty) days and thereafter continued to be under treatment at least up to February, 2003. The doctor i.e. P.W.2 has also stated in his deposition that the Appellant used to come to him for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, therefore, he had undoubtedly some loss of income because of the injury sustained by him. The doctor i.e. P.W.2 has also stated in his deposition that the Appellant used to come to him for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, therefore, he had undoubtedly some loss of income because of the injury sustained by him. Such loss of income cannot be accepted to be for the whole life as claimed by the claimant/Appellant claiming that he suffered permanent total disablement for which he became disabled to earn anything as mechanic, as there is no medical evidence in that regard, though the claimant/Appellant has examined the doctor as RW.-2. The doctor has not stated that he has suffered 50% of total disablement, from which he cannot recover. 13. The question therefore, is what would be the just compensation for the injury sustained by the claimant/Appellant. It is a settled position of law that some guess work is always available for quantification of the amount of compensation payable to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. 14. In R.D. Hattangadi (supra), the Apex Court has held that while an amount of compensation payable to a victim of a accident, damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages such as medical attendance; loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; other material loss and special damages i.e. non-pecuniary damages, which may include 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 which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; damages for loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. The Apex Court has further held that while fixing 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. But the said elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 15. As discussed above, P.W. 2, the Dr. Nokdang Jamir, in his deposition has stated that the claimant/Appellant suffered 70% disablement because of the injury sustained by him in the accident. But the said elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 15. As discussed above, P.W. 2, the Dr. Nokdang Jamir, in his deposition has stated that the claimant/Appellant suffered 70% disablement because of the injury sustained by him in the accident. During cross examination this witness has stated that 70% disablement he has certified is on the basis of assumption only but in any case the claimant has suffered at least 50% disablement. However, the doctor has not stated whether such disablement is temporary or permanent or whether recoverable after taking due treatment, though the claimant/Appellant in his deposition has stated that he has suffered permanent disablement and unable to earn anything as a mechanic, from which he used to earn about Rs. 3,000/- per month. The permanent disablement of the claimant/Appellant, in the absence of any positive medical evidence in that regard cannot be accepted. However, it is evident from the evidences adduced by the claimant/Appellant that he has suffered some disability, may be of temporary nature. The record of the MAC Case also reveals that the claimant/Appellant was examined on commission on the basis of the application submitted on 22.3.2004 praying for his examination on commission on the ground that the claimant/Appellant was bed ridden since the accident due to serious injuries, therefore, unable to come to the learned Tribunal to depose. The learned Tribunal on being satisfied passed the order for examination of the claimant/Appellant apart from the doctor on commission, accordingly the evidence of claimant/Appellant as well as the doctor was recorded on commission. 16. From the narration of the aforesaid fact it is therefore, evident that the claimant was at least confined to bed because of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on 15.5.2002 up to 23rd February, 2004, i.e. the date when application for his examination on commission was filed. It is also in evidence of the claimant/Appellant that he could not earn anything as mechanic at least up to the date of recording of his deposition i.e. 22.3.2004 and the said fact has not been challenged by the insurance company by cross examining the claimant/Appellant except by putting suggestion to which he has denied. It is also in evidence of the claimant/Appellant that he could not earn anything as mechanic at least up to the date of recording of his deposition i.e. 22.3.2004 and the said fact has not been challenged by the insurance company by cross examining the claimant/Appellant except by putting suggestion to which he has denied. The Insurance company also did not adduce any evidence to prove that the claimant/Appellant was not bed ridden because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, therefore it can safely be held that the claimant/Appellant could not earn for about 2 years, even if it is taken that he has recovered from his injury subsequently. There was therefore, loss of income for two years. The monthly income of the claimant/Appellant as mechanic being 3,000/-, the annual income would be 36,000/- and for two years his loss of income would be 72,000/- from which an amount of Rs. 12,000/- can be deducted as the amount, which the Appellant would have spent on himself, thereby the loss of income would be Rs. 60,000/-. The claimant/Appellant is also entitled to Rs. 17,160/- being the medical expenses which the learned Tribunal has awarded, apart from a lump sum amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards the pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, for future treatment, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort and mental stress, considering the nature of injuries sustained by him as well as there being evidence on record that the claimant/Appellant continued to receive treatment. The Appellant is therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,47,160/- rounded to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount less the amount already paid including the amount paid under Section 140 of the Act, within a period of two months from today. The learned Tribunal on such deposit shall release the said amount to the claimant/Appellant by account payee cheque/bank draft drawn in the name of the claimant/Appellant. 17. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No cost. Appeal allowed