JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. P. Goutam, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 5, Insurance Company. 2. This appeal has been filed claiming enhancement of compensation against the award dated 16.02.2002, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur, in T.S.(MAC) No. 14 of 1999, whereby a sum of Rs.60,000/- was awarded by way of compensation in favour of the claimant-Appellant with interest thereon, for having sustained multiple injuries with 40% permanent disability. 3. The Appellant,who was 23 years of age , suffered multiple serious injuries, near Ittbhatta under Amtali PS., while he was traveling from Agartala to Udaipur by a Jeep bearing registration No. TR-01-3869, owned by Respondent No. 2. The accident took place as a result of head on collision with another vehicle. The claimant-Appellant, who sustained multiple serious injuries, was admitted in G.B. hospital, Agartala, where he was treated, as an indoor patient, from 06.07.1998 to 29.08.1998. Considering the grievousness of the injuries sustained by the claimant-Appellant, he was referred to S.S.K.M. hospital, Kolkata, for better treatment. However, due to financial constraints the claimant-Appellant could not go to S.S.K.M. hospital, Kolkatta, for better treatment. Consequently, the claimant-Appellant was discharged from the local hospital on 19.08.1998. However, as the injuries had not heal up, the claimant-Appellant was once again admitted as indoor patient at Tripura Sundari District Hospital w.e.f. 24.08.1998 to 04.09.1998. Accordingly, the claimant-Appellant was treated as an indoor patient in the hospital for about 55 days. The claimant-Appellant, for the purpose of his treatment, spent more than Rs.30,000/- but he was found to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 40%. A certificate to that effect was issued to him by the District Medical Board. The claimant-Appellant filed application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, delineating all the facts leading to his accident and consequent permanent disablement and claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, for medical expenses, mental agonies and sufferings and also for having sustained 40; permanent disability. 4. The Respondent-Opposite Party, entered appearance denying the allegations and submitted that since two vehicles were involved in the accident, in the event of any award of compensation in favour of the claimant-Appellant, the same should be borne by both the offending vehicles and responsibility should be fixed on both the vehicles. 4. The Respondent-Opposite Party, entered appearance denying the allegations and submitted that since two vehicles were involved in the accident, in the event of any award of compensation in favour of the claimant-Appellant, the same should be borne by both the offending vehicles and responsibility should be fixed on both the vehicles. However, it was subsequently found that for both the vehicles were insured with the Respondent No. 5 insurance company. 5. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, framed issues and recorded evidence of the witnesses. Finally, on perusal of the materials on record and on conclusion of the proceeding, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant-Appellant suffered permanent disablement because of the accident. But, while computing the compensation in favour of the claimant-Appellant, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- only, for the injuries and sufferings sustained by the injured claimant and additionally awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as incidental costs, including the cost of medicines etc. Being aggrieved by the above award, this appeal has been filed by the claimant-Appellant for enhancement of the award. 6. Learned Counsel for the claimant-Appellant has pointed out that there is no dispute in respect of the fact that the claimant-Appellant was 23 years of age at the time of accident and he had monthly income of Rs.3,000/- per month as he was the owner of one Ration Shop prior to the accident. Learned Counsel for the claimant-Appellant has submitted that the Respondents-opposite parties, except denying the assertion made by the claimant-Appellant, did not controvert such statement of income made by the claimant-Appellant in his cross-examination. Learned Counsel for the claimant-Appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal even after having accepted the unfortunate accident and injuries sustained by the claimant-Appellant failed to appreciate the permanent disability of 40% sustained by the claimant-Appellant, while computing the award in favour of the claimant-Appellant. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that the loss of income sustained by the claimant-Appellant would be to the extent of 40% all through his life. 7. Therefore, while awarding compensation to the claimant-Appellant, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration all relevant factors, including permanent disability to the extent of 40% sustained by the injured claimant. The claimant-Appellant, who had a small business in the village, sustained 40% permanent disability and this situation cannot be unconscientiously looked into. 7. Therefore, while awarding compensation to the claimant-Appellant, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration all relevant factors, including permanent disability to the extent of 40% sustained by the injured claimant. The claimant-Appellant, who had a small business in the village, sustained 40% permanent disability and this situation cannot be unconscientiously looked into. When a physically fit young man in his early twenties suffers 40% physical disability, he loses not only the capacity to earn by 40% for his entire life but such injuries would also obviously diminish and lower down all other faculties to rejuvenate and invigorate physical prowess in him for rest of his life. Consequently with the loss of physical fitness, mental strength is also diminished to a great extent, which ultimately deprives the young man with the very essence of human living. The compensation of Rs.40,000/- in total awarded to an young man of early twenties for suffering 40% permanent disability not only reflects poverty in approach but also violates the principle under which such benevolent legislations are enacted. 8. As a matter of fact a 'just compensation' means 'adequate compensation', which is required to be fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The compensation so awarded has to make good the loss, suffered as a result of the accident, as far as money can do so. The assessment of compensation should always be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, fairness and uniformity in the decision making process. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the claimant-Appellant that the method of computing and applying the multiplier was not at all resorted to by the learned Tribunal while computing the award. Therefore, conspicuous departure from this rule, introduced inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability in respect of assessment of compensation. 10. While awarding compensation payable to the victim of an accident, the damages caused to the victim are required to be assessed by clearly indicating the pecuniary damages and special damages/non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are those, which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas special damages/non-pecuniary damages are those, which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those, which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas special damages/non-pecuniary damages are those, which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Apparently, the pecuniary damages would include the expenses incurred by the victim/claimant, such as, medical attendance, loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial and other material loss. 11. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 , , Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observation which may be gainfully extracted herein below observed as follows: 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 up to 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 in life. 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Co. has strenuously submitted that since the claimant-Appellant failed to establish that he had an income of Rs.3,000/- per month at the relevant point of time from his business, there is no question of assessing his compensation by accepting his income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further pointed out that since the claimant-Appellant has failed to substantiate his monthly income, therefore, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as stipulated in the Second Schedule of the Act should be taken into account, for determination of compensation. 13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further pointed out that since the claimant-Appellant has failed to substantiate his monthly income, therefore, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as stipulated in the Second Schedule of the Act should be taken into account, for determination of compensation. 13. Referring to a decision of a Single Bench of this Court in MAC APP No. 41 of 1999 (Smt. Sabita Mallik and Ors. V. Shri Dipak Ghosh and Ors.), learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Co. has submitted that notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum can be accepted in two situations. The first is, where the claimant has admitted that the deceased had no income and the second situation is whether he had some income but the precise quantum thereof cannot be determined. The relevant observation made in the above decision reads as follows: - 7. This will bring the Court to a consideration of the second argument advanced. The notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum can be accepted in two situations. The first is where the claimants have admitted that the deceased had no income and the second is a situation whether he had some income but the precise quantum thereof cannot be determined. The applicability of the provisions of the Second Schedule prescribing notional income to either of the aforesaid two situations stems from beneficial nature of the legislation in question. The present case falls in the second category. The claimants/ Appellants themselves admitted that the deceased had some income which was claimed to be Rs.2,500/- per month. If that be so, it is difficult to visualize as to how the argument advanced by Sri Dab can merit approval of the Court. In any event under the 2nd Schedule to the Act, deduction of 1/3rd of the income is also contemplated. The entire 2nd Schedule to the Act proceeds on a fair amount of surmises and guesswork and not on the basis of arithmetical precision. But it has withstood the test of time though it provides a rough and ready measure of working out the just compensation payable. 14. In Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, reported in AIR 2009 SCW 493, Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that 'Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just". 14. In Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, reported in AIR 2009 SCW 493, Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that 'Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining "the amount of compensation which appears to be just". However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Act. Thus, the expression "which appears to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. Nevertheless, the wide amplitude of such power does not empower the Tribunal to determine the compensation arbitrarily, or to ignore settled principles relating to determination of compensation. Similarly, although the Act is a beneficial legislation, it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit, nor as a windfall to the persons affected nor should it be punitive to the persons liable to pay compensation. The determination of compensation must be based on certain data, establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred by the dependants of the deceased and the compensation to be awarded to them. In a nutshell, the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimants has to be fair and reasonable by accepted legal standards'. 15. In India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) the Supreme Court held that the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. 16. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court in Brestu Ram v. Ananta Ram 1990 ACJ 333 , held: It is pecuniary loss, i.e., capable of calculation in terms of money, and non-pecuniary loss, i.e., loss that cannot be easily assessed with accuracy-Pecuniary loss is the loss suffered by the victim due to the loss of earnings or other profits which he had been earning and was to earn in future at the same rate or at some promoted scale. Non-pecuniary loss consists of damages awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life and prospects. Under the non-pecuniary loss, for want of accurate assessment, a global figure could be arrived at and paid as compensation. Non-pecuniary loss consists of damages awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life and prospects. Under the non-pecuniary loss, for want of accurate assessment, a global figure could be arrived at and paid as compensation. Under pecuniary loss the assessment can be made easily by taking into consideration at least monthly income actually earned by the victim and the difference between what he would be capable to earn on disablement. 17. It is well settled that in disablement cases, the compensation has always to be higher than even in cases of death since it is given to the living victim of the accident both for his personal loss and for economic loss. It can be said that the bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitled the victim to claim damages, which vary according to the gravity of the injury. Further, due to this injury, there can be loss of earnings, completely or partial due to the accident on his capacity to earn the same. Another consequence may be the loss he suffers on account of the enjoyment of life or full pleasures of living 18. Therefore, while assessing the compensation to an injured victim the Claims Tribunal should have regard to the degree of deficiency and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation for the personal injuries of the victim should be assessed so as to compensate for the deprivation suffered throughout the life. Compensation could be awarded for personal loss, damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, personal inconvenience and discomfiture, actual money spent on the treatment, transportation etc. by taking into account actual loss of income and the estimated future loss of income. 19. In the instant case, with regard to the future loss of income of the claimant, the Tribunal has not awarded a dime. The claimant hailed from a village and was doing grocery business. All though learned Counsel for the Insurance company, by drawing attention of the court to the cross examination of the claimant submitted that since the income certificate was not produced, the oral statement of the claimant cannot be believed. However, there is no cogent reason to disbelieve the assertion of the claimant on oath that he was earning Rs.3000 to Rs.4000 by doing grocery business. However, there is no cogent reason to disbelieve the assertion of the claimant on oath that he was earning Rs.3000 to Rs.4000 by doing grocery business. Though the claimant-Appellant admittedly did not submit any certificate as a ration shop owner, a modest income of Rs.3,000/- per month for an young man in his early twenties, having a good health, all vigor and vitality, cannot be said to be absurd. He can be expected to earn at least Rs.100/- per day, even as a daily labourer. Therefore Rs.3000/-per month as asserted by the claimant, appears to be reasonable and justified. Further, on the face of the forth right statement of the claimant on oath and in the absence of any materials on record to controvert such statement, it would not be proper to suspect or doubt the veracity of his statement on oath. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the income of Rs.3000/-, for an young man in his early twenties is not at all absurd, rather it can be can be safely considered to be reasonable and justified. Consequently, the analogy sought to drawn from the decision of Smt. Sabita Mallik and Ors. V. Shri Dipak Ghosh and Ors.(supra), by the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company can not be applied to fix the award of the claimant-Appellant in terms of notional income of Rs.15000/- per year . 20. In the present case under consideration, the learned Tribunal did not record any finding as regards the income of the claimant-Appellant, in awarding compensation. Therefore, apparently the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant, aged 23 years, who sustained 40; disablement, cannot be held to be just and proper. 21. In view of the above, after careful deliberation of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the claimant-Appellant is entitled to the following compensation: - 22. It is to be seen that in this case the claimant who sustained 40% physical disability, was 23 years old at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.3000/- a month. As per the Second Schedule the multiplier in case of the persons between 20 to 25 years is 17. Accordingly, the loss of income of the claimant would be 40% of Rs.3,000 x 17x12= Rs.2,44,800/-. 23. As per the Second Schedule the multiplier in case of the persons between 20 to 25 years is 17. Accordingly, the loss of income of the claimant would be 40% of Rs.3,000 x 17x12= Rs.2,44,800/-. 23. However, over and above the claimant is also entitled to receive the expenses incurred by him for his treatment, which was assessed at Rs.20,000/- by the learned Tribunal . 24. Thus, in view the above discussions, claimant is held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,44,800/- + Rs.20,000/= Rs.2,64,800/-(rupees two lakhs sixty four thousand and eight hundred). 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is raised to Rs.2,64,800/-, which shall be paid by the Respondent-Insurance Company. However, 3 months time is granted to the Respondent-Insurance Company to make the payment less the amount, if any, already paid, failing which the Appellant will be entitled to interest @12% per annum. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.