JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the award dated 28.6.2004, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of merely Rs. 56,020/- to the claimant - appellant, the claimant - appellant has approached this Court. 2. Shortly the facts of the case are that on 24.12.2001, the appellant-claimant was travelling in a jeep, bearing registration No. RJ-29-P-0559. When the jeep reached near Shahadpur Mod, a truck was coming from the opposite side. The driver of the jeep, driving the jeep rashly and negligently, drove the jeep off the road. Consequently, the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries. He filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal against the respondents. The respondent No. 4, the Insurance Company, filed its reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and recorded the evidence. In order to buttress his case, the appellant examined two witnesses including himself and exhibited number of documents. On the contrary, the respondents did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both the parties, vide award dated 28.6.2004, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the claimant-appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs. 56,020/-. Since the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is a meager one, hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Ilesh Jindal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal has not paid the compensation under the following categories : firstly, for seven days hospitalization; secondly, for the attendant; thirdly, for the special diet that the claimant would be entitled to; fourthly, for the injury suffered, in accordance with the item No. 4 of the Schedule II attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; lastly, for the loss of amenities. According to the disability certificate (Ex-1), the claimant-appellant would have difficulty in squatting and sitting cross lag. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have paid certain amount of compensation for "loss of amenities". Although the learned Tribunal has paid Rs. 10,000/- under the category of "pain and suffering", but considering the fact that the claimant-appellant was 40 years old, considering the fact that he has the rest of his life before him, a higher amount should have been paid for "pain and suffering". 4. Although the learned Tribunal has paid Rs. 10,000/- under the category of "pain and suffering", but considering the fact that the claimant-appellant was 40 years old, considering the fact that he has the rest of his life before him, a higher amount should have been paid for "pain and suffering". 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the learned Tribunal has, indeed, granted a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- for the medicine, for the X-ray etc. Therefore, the medical expenses have been paid for. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 1995 ACJ 366 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the parameters for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loses suffered by an injured person. Pare 9 is as under : 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 as 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. 7. The parameters established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court should be kept in mind by the learned Tribunal. However, a bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has ignored some of the parameters. 7. The parameters established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court should be kept in mind by the learned Tribunal. However, a bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has ignored some of the parameters. Although the learned Tribunal has noted the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for seven days, yet, it has not granted a single penny for the period of hospitalization. Moreover, it has not granted any compensation for the medical attendant. Considering the fact that the claimant-appellant had broken his leg, obviously he would have required an attendant during the period of seven days while he was hospitalization. Moreover, the appellant would have taken certain special diet during that period. Thus, these three elements should have been compensated by the learned Tribunal. 8. According to Item No. 4 of Schedule II attached to the M.V. Act, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- in case of grievous injury. However, the said amount has not been granted by the learned Tribunal to the appellant. 9. According to the disability certificate, the appellant would have difficulty in squatting and sitting cross legged. Considering the fact that he happens to be from a rural area, where he would be required squat or to sit in cross legged position, the learned Tribunal should have appreciated the fact that the appellant would have suffered loss of amenities. Yet, the learned Tribunal has not paid a single penny under this category. 10. Considering the fact that the appellant was hospitalized for seven days, this Court grants Rs. 5,000/- for the hospital expenses; considering the fact that he would have required an attendant and special died during the said period, this Court grants Rs. 3,000/- for the twins category of special diet and attendance; considering the grievous injuries suffered by the appellant, this Court grants 75,000/- in accordance with item No. 4 of Schedule II attached to the M.V. Act to him; considering the loss of amenities suffered by the appellant, this Court grants Rs. 10,000/- to him. 11. Therefore, the award dated 28.6.2004 is hereby, modified to the limited extent that the following compensation further needs to be paid by the insurance Company to the appellant, as under : (i) hospital expenses Rs. 5,000/- (ii) special diet and attendance Rs. 3,000/- (iii) grievous injuries Rs. 5,000/- (iv) loss of amenity Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 23,000/- 12. 11. Therefore, the award dated 28.6.2004 is hereby, modified to the limited extent that the following compensation further needs to be paid by the insurance Company to the appellant, as under : (i) hospital expenses Rs. 5,000/- (ii) special diet and attendance Rs. 3,000/- (iii) grievous injuries Rs. 5,000/- (iv) loss of amenity Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 23,000/- 12. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the said amount along with interest @ 9 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 15.2.2002 to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 13. With these observations, this appeal is, hereby, allowed.Appeal allowed. *******