JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. - Both the appeal and cross objections are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The claimant challenges the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-(II), Shimla, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,37,300/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 3. The plea of the claimant is that compensation has not been assessed in accordance with law as the appellant herein has suffered crippling injuries on his leg to the extent of 12% as certified by the summary treatment Ex.P-2 and disability certificate Ex.P-3. 4. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'HRTC) challenges this award in cross objections by pleading that it is excessive and that the award be either modified or set aside. 5. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the learned Tribunal, on the pleadings and evidence of the parties, allowed the claim of the appellant herein. The brief facts necessary for adjudication before the learned Tribunal are that on 15.6.2004 the claimant was travelling from Sandoa to Mandi in bus No.HP-31-1542 belonging to the HRTC to attend his business affairs. According to the petitioner, the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver as a result of which it met with an accident and the petitioner sustained injuries on his ribs, lungs and legs. He was treated in Hospital at Mandi from where he was referred to IGMC (Indira Gandhi Medical College), Shimla, where he remained admitted from 17.6.2004 to 19.8.2004. According to him, he had spent a sum of Rs. 90,000/- on his treatment. Case of rash and negligent driving was registered vide FIR No.87 of 2004 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. The pleading is that the petitioner cannot perform normal work and is still continuing further medical treatment. The petition was contested by the HRTC as also the driver who was pleaded as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. This respondent (driver) died during the pendency of the proceedings and his name was deleted from the array of respondents. 6. On the settled issues, the learned Tribunal held in favour of the petitioner. The factum of the accident was proved and has not been challenged in the cross objections by the appellant herein. This respondent (driver) died during the pendency of the proceedings and his name was deleted from the array of respondents. 6. On the settled issues, the learned Tribunal held in favour of the petitioner. The factum of the accident was proved and has not been challenged in the cross objections by the appellant herein. Even in the cross objections it is only the quantum which is challenged. On the question of quantum the learned Tribunal considers the expert evidence of Dr.L.R. Verma PW-1 who was working as Assistant Professor in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and proved that the petitioner was admitted as indoor patient on 17.6.2004 and had suffered fracture shaft femur left side with bilateral deep Vein Thrombolism. Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, the treatment received by the petitioner and the extract of the disability certificate, were taken into account by the learned Tribunal. The disability was certified as 12% of permanent nature. The evidence of the petitioner was that he was running a furniture shop at Matiyana but was not an income tax payee. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the entire evidence on record and the fact that a sum of Rs. 17,686/- was paid by the HRTC as medical expenditure to the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,37,300/- which included medical expenses, attendant and transportation costs, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of income. 7. In Govind Yadav v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., 2012 ACJ 28 , the Supreme Court considers the entire case law with respect to the principles for award of damages for injuries/disablement and holds:- "10. The personal sufferings of the survivors and disabled persons are manifold. Some time they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term 'compensation' used in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children, women and illiterate persons. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. The insurance companies with whom the vehicles involved in the accident are insured usually have battery of lawyers on their panel. They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liabilities minimized. This results in prolonging the proceedings before the Tribunal. Sometimes the delay and litigation expenses' make the award passed by the Tribunal and even by the High Court (in appeal) meaningless. It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Sections 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, (1995) 1 SCC 551 , this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:" 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. 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. In the same case, the Court further observed: "(12) 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." 15. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., 2010 ACJ 2867 (SC) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ 1 (SC), must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." (pp.31-32 & 35) 8. Looking to the facts of the present case what I find is that the petitioner had suffered hospitalization for a period of about two months and is still undergoing treatment. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- for expenses on attendant and transportation, Rs. 25,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs. 2300/- for medical expenses. 9. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- for expenses on attendant and transportation, Rs. 25,000/- for loss of amenities of life and Rs. 2300/- for medical expenses. 9. Taking into consideration the loss suffered by him and the fact that he was running a shop as also the injury have prevented him from attending his business for a considerable period as he had remained hospitalized for about two months, it would be in the interest of justice if the overall compensation is increased to Rs. 1,50,000/- in all instead of Rs. 1,37,300/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The amount will carry interest at the rate awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of the award. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Cross Objections No.413 of 2006. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, the cross objections are dismissed.