Judgment Hon'ble SINGH, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 7th November, 1997 passed by the learned judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur for enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. The appellant met with an accident on dated 27th July, 1993 at 9.15 a.m. in the morning while he was standing in front of the Agarwal College, Jaipur and awaiting for the Bus and was hit by the offending vehicle Tempo No.RJ-14 P 0177 causing grievous injuries i.e. fracture of right leg resulting in 10% disability. 3. Learned Counsel submits that the claimant was a broker in jewellery trade and used to earn Rs. 2,000/- per month and was disabled adversely affecting his occupation for whole of life apart from undergoing mental and physical distress. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned facto4 of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 1995 A.C.J. 366. 4. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence adduced in the matter and has awarded adequate compensation and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the rival submissions, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has failed o consider the pecuniary and non-pecun8iary loss suffered by the claimants as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra) as under: - "9. Boardly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 1995 A.C.J. 366: 1995 (1) T.A.C. 557 (S.C.) 6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence adduced in the matter and has awarded adequate compensation and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. In view of the rival submissions, it may be noted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra) as under:- "9. Boardly 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. Boardly 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 is 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 suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include 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 in life." 8. On application of the aforesaid guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is revealed that appellant-claimant has been put to permanent disability of 10% and his occupation is reduced in earning his livelihood. The injured was of 25 years of age at the time accident and has to carry on with the permanent disability for the whole life resulting in handicap, inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in his day-to-day life and even in discharging his normal social obligations. Therefore, in view of these factors, the amount of compensation deserves to have enhanced, from 50,000/- to 85,000/- from the date of appeal. 9. In view of the above legal positions of the fact it is revealed that the compensation is on lower side and to be increased from 50,000/- to 85,000/- from the date of appeal with interest at the rate of 7-1/2 p.a. from the date of filing the appeal and the amount under the award shall be payable within three months from the date of this order and failure to do so, the amount shall entail interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 10. The appeal stands disposed off.