1. Appellant-Inder Bhadur Chettri sustained injuries in a vehicular accident on 13-01-1996. The offending vehicle belongs to Union of India (respondent No. 1) and being driven by respondent No. 2. The appellant has received several injuries in this accident, but the main injury on his back bone has crippled him totally for which he remained admitted in the hospital for more than seven months i.e., from 13-01-1996 to 02-09-1996. The doctor found it to be a case of hundred percent disability, resultantly he had to lose his job also. At the time of accident, the appellant was in defence service, getting salary to the tune of Rs. 3318/- P.M. In this accident, his scooter had also got damaged. 2. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Udhampur seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 26.68 Lacs on different counts. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal vide award dated 31-12-2011 granted a sum of Rs. 2.80 Lacs. (Rupees Two Lac and Eighty thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the awarded amount on the following three heads: 1. For pain,, suffering and mental torture. Rs.1,00,000/- 2. For Loss of future prospects/future earning. Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. For Medical treatment,, expenses for attendants/damage to scooter. Rs. 80,000/- 3. The appellant through the instant appeal seeks enhancement of the compensation. It would not be out of place to mention here that the respondents being aggrieved of the award, filed appeal before the learned Single Judge bearing CIMA No. 248 of 2002, which came to be dismissed on 15-11-2002, aggrieved thereof, LPA No. 65 of 2003, which also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 26-05-2011. Copy of the said judgement is forming part of the instant appeal. 4. Heard Mr. R.S. Kotwal, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Sharma for both the respondents. Mr. Kotwal submits that under all the three heads, the amount of compensation granted in favour of the appellant is too meager keeping in view the physical condition of the appellant, who is virtually crippled and totally bed ridden. 4. Heard Mr. R.S. Kotwal, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Sharma for both the respondents. Mr. Kotwal submits that under all the three heads, the amount of compensation granted in favour of the appellant is too meager keeping in view the physical condition of the appellant, who is virtually crippled and totally bed ridden. He submits that it is a case of hundred percent disability because of the fracture of vertebra for which the appellant not only remained admitted in the hospital for seven/eight months, he had to undergo lot of pain and suffering during this period. Not only that even after the discharge from the hospital, he cannot move on his own and needs help of someone to lift him physically. He submits that the appellant cannot go to answer the call of nature on his own and needs an attendant for that purpose as well. Although all these facts were brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal when the appellant himself was stepped into the witness box, despite that the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 1,00,000/- only under the head Pain, suffering and mental torture. This amount, according to the learned counsel, is on a very lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Mr. Kotwal then submits that even otherwise, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- granted to the appellant on account of loss of future prospects/future earning is also too less an amount. The appellant was earning about Rs. 4,000/- per month before the accident. Because of this disability, he is out of job and has not been sanctioned any pension as the length of service was not complete. Had this accident not made the appellant permanently disabled, he would have served the department for another ten/twelve years and also earned promotions and increments. This all has resulted into a great pecuniary loss to him vis-a-vis his service career. Therefore, the compensation under this head also deserves to be enhanced suitably. Mr. Kotwal then submits that for awarding Rs. 80,000/- for medical treatment, expenses towards attendant is also too meager amount. He submits that so far as damage to the scooter is concerned, as per the vouchers regarding the repairs of the scooter, the expenditure goes to Rs. 8,000/- only and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim more than that, but the rest of the amount i.e., Rs. 80,000/- for medical treatment, expenses towards attendant is also too meager amount. He submits that so far as damage to the scooter is concerned, as per the vouchers regarding the repairs of the scooter, the expenditure goes to Rs. 8,000/- only and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim more than that, but the rest of the amount i.e., Rs. 72,000/- for medical treatment and expenditure towards the attendant is not justifiable amount of compensation in the given circumstances of the present case. Thus, the amount already awarded on the aforesaid two counts i.e., medical treatment and expenses towards the attendants also deserves to be enhanced. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Sharma appearing for the respondents states that no doubt the appellant was relieved from government job, but nothing was brought on record before the Tribunal that he was deprived of the emoluments, which he was earlier getting and, therefore, he cannot claim any amount for loss of future prospects or future earnings. According to Mr. Sharma, the appellant has been adequately compensated under this head. He fairly submits that since the appellant has not been able to get the award altered or modified on any count including the quantum of compensation, he will not be in a position to join issue with regard to the amount of compensation awarded under this head, whereas the appellant did not deserve any compensation under this head at least. He then submits that even otherwise the compensation granted in favour of the appellant under other two different heads is also just compensation. After hearing rival contentions of the either side, I am of the considered view that the compensation already awarded in favour of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 2.80 Lacs calls for enhancement. In case `R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. & others' reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551 , while fixing compensation in case of injury affecting earning capacity, the Apex Court held as under: - "....No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." In the aforesaid judgment only, the Apex Court held thus:- "in its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." In a recent judgment handed down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case `Yadava Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another' reported in 2010 (5) R.A.J. 116, while drawing the distinction between `compensation' and `damage' their Lordships have observed in para 20 as under:- "20. The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation." 5. In injury case, the principle of assessing the compensation in favour of the claimant-injured is, assessment of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses resulting from the injury. 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. 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 on (i) medical attendance (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial or (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered by the victim 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. All these assessments are to be made on the basis of the facts of an individual case. 6. Let us examine the case of the appellant on this yardstick for assessing the just compensation in his favour. 7. The appellant is hundred percent disabled person as is apparent on record. The respondents cannot dispute his disability at all. In medical term, he has suffered Paraplegia below the waist. It has come in his statement, when examined on oath that he had engaged two persons for himself, who looked after him for moving from one place to another. He has also stated that he needs assistance while attending the call of nature. He has also stated that he had spent lot of money on his treatment. He further stated that he has to make purchases for buying urinary box and other items, which has become a necessity for him after the accident. These aspects otherwise cannot be disputed in this particular case. The appellant is totally ship-wrecked personality having no ray of hope of improvement. It is a case of recurring loss to the victim till he is in this world, Mental shock, agony or pain cannot be just equated with money. Therefore, an attempt should be made to take the claimant-injured in a physical condition in which he was at the date of accident by suitably compensating him. It is a case of recurring loss to the victim till he is in this world, Mental shock, agony or pain cannot be just equated with money. Therefore, an attempt should be made to take the claimant-injured in a physical condition in which he was at the date of accident by suitably compensating him. Keeping all these factors into consideration, in my view, the compensation awarded in favour of the appellant under the head pain, suffering and mental torture as non-pecuniary damages is very meager. It should have been at least rupees Two Lac instead of Rupees One lac. I grant the same. 8. Similarly, with regard to the compensation awarded under the head medical treatment and expenses towards the attendant is also very meager. I take it as Rs. 72,000/- for the reason that the total amount of Rs. 80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal includes the damage to the scooter also for which vouchers with regard to the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- were produced before the Tribunal as is clear from the record. This amount has to be deducted. The appellant remained hospitalized for more than seven months where he was always in need of one or two attendants. He needs at least one person even after his discharge. One can simply make out that he needs an attendant 24x7. Even if his wife discharges the duty of an attendant, even on that count also her contribution has to be assessed from monetary angle. At the same time, he must have spent a reasonably good amount on his medical treatment. May be there is no documentary proof in this regard, but from the totality of facts, one can comfortably make it out even by involving guess work. Therefore, in my view, the appellant deserves enhancement of another fifty thousand on aforesaid two counts. I order accordingly. 9. So far as another Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) awarded to the appellant for loss of future prospects/future earnings is concerned, in my view, there is no cogent evidence on record for enhancing the compensation on this count. Therefore, it does not call for any interference. 10. The net result is that the appellant is entitled to the enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand) over and above Rs. 2,80,000/- already awarded in his favour by the learned Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. Therefore, it does not call for any interference. 10. The net result is that the appellant is entitled to the enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lac and Fifty Thousand) over and above Rs. 2,80,000/- already awarded in his favour by the learned Tribunal. Ordered accordingly. May be the respondents have been directed to pay interest on the awarded compensation @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the awarded amount, but in my view the appellant is entitled to the interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, which shall also be effective from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the enhanced amount. However, 9% interest already awarded on Rs. 2.80 Lacs shall remain as it is. The impugned award stands modified /altered in the aforesaid terms. Disposed of.