JUDGMENT Mr. Mukul Mudgal, C.J.(Oral):- This appeal challenges the judgment dated 21.11.2000 by which the learned Single Judge partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur dated 5.4.1995 and enhanced the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs.100000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. The appellant who was the claimant is aggrieved by the said judgment and seeks further enhancement by way of this appeal. 2. Jit Ram the present appellant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the State of Punjab through Secretary, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur and driver Tarsem Singh on account of the accident which took place on 14.5.1992 when the appellant was driving his Scooter. The bus driven by the driver of the Roadways struck the appellant leading to amputation of his both legs. 3. Learned Single Judge as well as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal have held the driver of the bus to be negligent and awarded the compensation. In so far as the concurrent findings on issue of negligence is concerned, we agree with the said findings and affirm them. The only question is as to the enhancement of compensation. Having perused the judgment of the learned Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge, we have noticed that there is no quantification of compensation in respect of pain and suffering. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi V. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 755(1) has particularly in paragraphs No. 14 and 17 dealt with the question of quantification of compensation in respect of pain and suffering and has held as under:- 14. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 12 regarding non pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said: “Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern.- Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and no subject to large variations in individual cases.” 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 the 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. According to us, as the appellant was an advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of the accident he has been crippled and can move only on wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000 in respect of claim for pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000 in respect of loss of amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.6,00,000 under the heads “Pain and Suffering” and “Loss of amenities of life”. 4. In paragraph No. 17 of the judgment extracted above , it has clearly been laid down that in case of amputation of both legs, the compensation on account of pain and suffering should be allowed to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. No compensation in the present case in respect of pain and suffering has been granted on that account. 4. In paragraph No. 17 of the judgment extracted above , it has clearly been laid down that in case of amputation of both legs, the compensation on account of pain and suffering should be allowed to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. No compensation in the present case in respect of pain and suffering has been granted on that account. Though the above referred case was in respect of an Advocate, but pain and suffering for similar injuries cannot differ from individual to individual and has to be gauged on the same scale. The pain and suffering remains same whether it is a Workman or indeed the Director of the company. Therefore, the status in life of a claimant cannot have any bearing while assessing the compensation on this score. Accordingly, following the dictum of the case law cited supra, we are of the view that the appellant was certainly entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation in respect of claim for pain and suffering. 5. Apart from this, the appellant had also claimed a sum of Rs.40000/- towards medical expenditure which was ruled out only on the ground that no medical bills were produced. We are of the view that a person who had lost his legs in an accident would hardly be in a position to retain the bills if given by the Doctor. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge that the claimant was not entitled to medical allowance is not justified and we award Rs.40000/- as compensation on account of medical expenditure etc. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded a lump sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest awarded by the learned Single Judge. The appellant has already received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge and accordingly balance sum of Rs.80000/- alongwith interest accruing thereon as per the order of the learned Single Judge shall be paid to the appellant through counsel not later than 12 weeks from today. The appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs. -----------------------------