Judgment – Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, counsel for the appellant and Shri Pankaj Purohit, counsel for the respondent. 2. This is owner's appeal. 3. By the present appeal, filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensational amount awarded by the judgment and award dated 11-8-2005 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal, in MAC.P. No. 33 of 2001. 4. Briefly stated a motor accident claim petition no. 33 of 2001 was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant Kumari Kalawati. According to the claimant, on 3-2-2001, the Claimant was returning to her home by Commander Jeep No. U.P. 08-6126. Suddenly, the aforesaid Jeep fell down into the ditch due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. As a result of the same, Kr. Deepa, Kr. Rajni and Sanjay Dangwal died on spot and the claimant sustained injuries. She was taken to Base Hospital, Srikot and thereafter referred to Dehradun. She has spent a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- towards medical expenses. It has been stated that the opposite party no.1 Bijendra Singh is the registered owner of the Jeep and the said Jeep was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. The claimant has suffered mental and physical agony. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- has been claimed towards compensation. 5. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the owner of the Jeep in question wherein the alleged accident has been admitted. It has been submitted that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Jeep was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited for all the liabilities. All the papers relating to the Jeep were in order and the driver was having a valid driving license. 6. The United Insurance Company has filed the written statement and has submitted that the Jeep was carrying more passengers than its capacity. The driver of the Jeep has not been imp-leaded as the party. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. 7. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. 6. The United Insurance Company has filed the written statement and has submitted that the Jeep was carrying more passengers than its capacity. The driver of the Jeep has not been imp-leaded as the party. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. 7. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the accident occurred on 3-2-2001 at about 4.30 p.m. on Dugadda-Piplidhar motor road by rash and negligent driving of Commander Jeep No. U.P. 08/6126 by its driver resulting injuries to the petitioner? . 2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and from which of the opp. parties? 3. Relief. 4. Whether the vehicle was over-loaded? If so, its effect? 8. The claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 and has produced documents relating to medical treatment. 9. On behalf of the opposite party no oral evidence has been adduced. The owner of the Jeep has produced papers related to the vehicle. 10. While deciding issue no. 1 as to whether the accident occurred on 3-2-2001 at about 4.30 p.m. on Dugadda-Piplidhar motor road by rash and negligent driving of Commander Jeep No. UP 08/6126 by its driver resulting injuries to the petitioner, the claims tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of claimant. She has stated that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. After the accident had occurred, the report has been submitted to the police station. Accordingly claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver. 11. While deciding issue no. 4 with regard to over-loading, the claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the case pertains to injuries sustained by third party and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be given benefit to escape from the liability to pay compensation even though the Jeep was over-loaded. 12. While deciding issue nos. 2 and 3 with regard to quantum of compensation, the claims tribunal has placed reliance on the disability certificate i.e. paper no. 42 ga/4 which shows that the claimant has become disabled to the extent of 70 per cent. The claims tribunal has also considered paper nos. 10 ga/1, 10 ga/10 which are papers related to medical treatment and paper no. 31 ga/3 which is medical bill. 42 ga/4 which shows that the claimant has become disabled to the extent of 70 per cent. The claims tribunal has also considered paper nos. 10 ga/1, 10 ga/10 which are papers related to medical treatment and paper no. 31 ga/3 which is medical bill. The claims tribunal has recorded the finding that in case of 70 per cent disability, a sum of Rs. 60,000-70,000 towards medical treatment is usual. Further, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of the claimant to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and after keeping in view the age of the claimant about 16 years, multiplier of 15 has been selected. By multiplying the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- with the multiplier of 15 and thereafter calculating the 70 per cent of same, the amount of compensation was worked out to the extent of Rs. 1,57,000/-. Further, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 63,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been awarded to the claimant. 13. So far as liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the registration certificate of the Jeep i.e. paper no. 18 ga/1, permit i.e. paper no. 18 ga/2, insurance cover note i.e. paper no. 18 gal3, tax payment certificate i.e. paper no. 18 ga/4 and driving license i.e. in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company and the driver was having a valid driving license and, as such, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the compensation, 14. Counsel for the appellant, Arvind Vashisht has submitted that the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- towards loss of future income and Rs. 63,000/- towards medical expenses and no amount has been awarded towards mental and physical sufferings: 15. A perusal of the evidence on record fully establishes that the injured was admitted to the Hospital from 3-2-2001 to 11-2-2001 in the Government Hospital and from 11-2-2001 to 5-3-2001 in Param Hospital, Dehradun. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant was hospitalized from 3-2-2001 to 5-3-2001 for more than one month and she has suffered the mental agony as contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995) 1 SCC 551. 16. In R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant was hospitalized from 3-2-2001 to 5-3-2001 for more than one month and she has suffered the mental agony as contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995) 1 SCC 551. 16. In R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995) 1 SCC 551, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "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 damage. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant : (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for 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 the 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, disappointment, frustration and mental stress of life. 17. The claim under SI. No. 16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under SI. No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000 each under two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,00,000 against the claims of Rs. 6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration." 17. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration." 17. In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the claimant-appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental sufferings apart from the compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- which has already been awarded. 18 Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the interest at the rate of 4 percent is too meager. The same is enhanced to the extent of 7.5 per cent per annum. 19. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal partly succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.