JUDGMENT Heard Sri D.S. Patni, counsel for the appellant and Sri T.A. Khan, counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. By the present A.O. filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, appellant has prayed for enhancement of the award dated 1st October, 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 164 of 2001 Sri Chandra Ballabh Nainwal Vs. Mohd. Sadab, whereby the claimant/appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,89,100.92 towards compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. 3. Briefly stated, a Claim Petition was filed by the claimant/appellant being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 164 of 2001 Sri Chandra Ballabh Nainwal Vs. Mohd. Sadab claiming a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards compensation. 4. According to the claimant, on 12.9.2001, he was going along with his brother from Kichha to Motahaldu on Scooter No. U.P. 25B5236. As soon as, he reached near Subhash Nagar barrier in Lalkuan at about 7.30 p.m., a Truck No. HR 05B/3117 which was coming from the side of Lalkuan and being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed the scooter. In this accident, claimant received grievous injuries including fracture in the right leg, hip and ribs. The claimant was immediately rushed to Krishna Nursing Home, Haldwani and he remained admitted there upto 11.10.2001 and spent a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on his treatment. After the treatment right leg of the claimant has got shortened by 1½”. As such, the claimant became disabled. 5. Owner of the truck has contested the claim by filing a written statement stating therein that he is the registered owner of the truck No. HR 05B/3117 and the truck is registered with the New India Assurance Company. It has further been stated that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck in question. 6. New India Assurance Company has contested the claim by filing a written statement stating therein that the claim petition is not maintainable due to want of compliance of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Owner of the Scooter has filed a written statement admitting the contests of the claim petition. Further in the additional pleas, it has been stated that the accident has taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of the Truck Driver. 8. 7. Owner of the Scooter has filed a written statement admitting the contests of the claim petition. Further in the additional pleas, it has been stated that the accident has taken place due to the sole negligence on the part of the Truck Driver. 8. National Insurance Company has contested the claim by filing a written statement stating therein that the Scooter was insured with it and has denied the contents of the claim petition. In the additional pleas, it has been stated that the truck driver was at fault and not the scooterist, and thus, insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, Claims Tribunal has framed the following issues : “(i) Whether Chandra Ballabh Nainwal (claimant) got injured in an accident on 12.9.01 as alleged in the claim petition due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the vehicle Truck Registration No. HR 05B/3117 owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2? (ii) Whether the claimant suffered the loss claimed, if so, to what amount of compensation and from whom, he is entitled to recover? (iii) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable as alleged in the written statement of insurance companies? (iv) To what relief, if any, the claimant is entitled?” 10. While deciding the issue as to whether Chandra Ballabh Nainwal (claimant) got injured in an accident on 12-9-01 as alleged in the claim petition due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the vehicle Truck Registration No. HR 05B/3117 owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2, claims tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant got injured in an accident on 12-9-2001 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Truck Registration No. HR 05B/3117 owned by respondent no. 1. Reliance has been placed on the statement of P.W.1 Chandra Ballabh Nainwal, medical bills and treatment papers i.e. Paper No. 25C/2 to 25C/24, X Ray plates and C.T. Scan Reports Paper No. 29C/17 to 29C/55, copy of the First Information Report Paper No. 5C/4 and 29C/3, copy of the charge-sheet Paper No. 29C/5. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid finding and the same deserves to be confirmed. 12. While deciding the issue no. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid finding and the same deserves to be confirmed. 12. While deciding the issue no. 2 as to whether the claimant has suffered the loss claimed by him and to what extent he is liable to be compensated, the claims tribunal has recorded a finding that on account of permanent disability, the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. Further relying upon various bills regarding medical treatment during the time when the claimant was admitted in the hospital, claims tribunal after relying upon the various bills regarding treatment and medicines has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,712.23. Further the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,388.69 for expenses incurred on his treatment after having been discharged from the hospital. Claims tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Thus, the claimant has been awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,89,100.92 towards compensation. This issue has been decided accordingly. 13. While deciding the issue as to whether the claim petition is not maintainable as alleged in the written statement of insurance company, claims tribunal has recorded a finding that the claim petition is maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the fitness certificate, temporary authorization in lieu of Registration Certificate issued by the Registration Authority of the vehicle Paper No. 22 C/8, permit of the Truck Paper No. 22C/6 and 22C/11, Insurance Cover Note Paper No. 22C/5 and copy of the driving license Paper No. 22C/2 to 22C/4. 14. I do not find any infirmity with the aforesaid finding recorded by the claims tribunal concerned and the same deserves to be confirmed. 15. Counsel for the appellant has confined his prayer to the extent that the claims tribunal concerned has not awarded a single penny towards non pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant. 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 damages. 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 damages. 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 Sl. No. 16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under Sl. 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. In view of the aforesaid case law as well as taking into consideration the over all situation, since the claims tribunal has not awarded any amount towards non-pecuniary loss suffered by the claims tribunal concerned, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is further awarded under the heading non-pecuniary loss. 18. In view of the aforesaid case law as well as taking into consideration the over all situation, since the claims tribunal has not awarded any amount towards non-pecuniary loss suffered by the claims tribunal concerned, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is further awarded under the heading non-pecuniary loss. 18. Subject to aforesaid modification in the award, A.O. partly succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.