JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in MAC petition No. 8-S/2 of 2006, whereby the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 9,93,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. 2. This case raises certain important issues and shows how even senior officers, who are manning the Tribunals, are not even aware of the basic principles relating to the entertainment of claim petitions and assessment of damages. A petition can be filed at the option of the claimant either in terms of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act either before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area where the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. It is thus obvious that there are three different venues available. However, when the claimant files a petition at the place where he resides or carries on business there must be some material to show that he is residing and has the animus to reside there for some length of time. Merely visiting a place for purpose of treatment will not clothe the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals with jurisdiction to entertain a petition. 3. This case is a glaring example where the claimant has chosen to approach a Tribunal, which definitely had no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. Why he chose to do so is not difficult to guess. Probably the Tribunal was more convenient to him for extraneous reasons. The address of the claimant both in the heading of the petition and the main body of the petition against Column No. 4 is shown to be village Nagori, P.O. Sach, District Chamba. The claimant however, in the first line of the petition has given his address C/o Vikas Nagar Kasumpti, Tehsil and District Shimla. Why and how he resides at Shimla is not known because admittedly it was neither his place of residence nor his place of business as would be more than apparent from the subsequent discussion on the other issues? The claimant however, in the first line of the petition has given his address C/o Vikas Nagar Kasumpti, Tehsil and District Shimla. Why and how he resides at Shimla is not known because admittedly it was neither his place of residence nor his place of business as would be more than apparent from the subsequent discussion on the other issues? The claimant claims to have hired an attendant at Chamba; the claimant claims transportation charges from Chamba to Shimla and back, every time he came to Shimla for treatment and therefore, one fails to understand how the claimant could be said to be residing at Shimla. 4. As per the Black's Law Dictionary the word "reside" means to settle oneself or a thing in a place, to be stationed, to remain or stay, to dwell permanently or continuously, to have a settled abode for time, to have one's resident or domicile. 5. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not apply its mind before entertaining the petition or even when the evidence was going on. However, since the award has been announced, evidence has been recorded and the entire material has been placed before this Court, I do not intend to set aside the award on the issue of jurisdictional error but these factors must be kept into consideration by all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in future. 6. The claimant admittedly suffered injuries in an accident which allegedly took place on 22.12.2001. The claimant was traveling on a scooter and there was a collision with a Canter bearing No. HP-47-1362 owned by Shri Amit Behal and driven by one Shri Ramesh. It was alleged that the vehicle was being driven in a negligent manner. The claimant further alleged that he suffered fracture in both legs, iron rods were installed and his permanent disability was to the extent of 45%. The claimant was hospitalized twice and claimed compensation of Rs. 27,25,000/-. 7. The claim petition was contested and the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded the claimant Rs. 25,000/- for medical treatment, Rs. 2,70,000/- as total loss of income for 5 years, Rs. 4,37,000/- as future loss of income by taking the loss of income at 45% of Rs. 4,500/-. The claimant was awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- as attendant charges, Rs. 4,500/- per month. The Tribunal has awarded the claimant Rs. 25,000/- for medical treatment, Rs. 2,70,000/- as total loss of income for 5 years, Rs. 4,37,000/- as future loss of income by taking the loss of income at 45% of Rs. 4,500/-. The claimant was awarded Rs. 1,20,000/- as attendant charges, Rs. 41,000/-as conveyance charges, Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and Rs. 50,000/-for loss of marital prospects i.e. a total of Rs. 9,93,400/-. 8. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damagers. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc. and (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be only token damages. 9. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote a few. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be only token damages. 9. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote a few. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1958 ACJ 504 (HL England) are very pertinent: Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injures should be compensated by comparable awards. 10. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) I All ER, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: Firstly, assessability: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derive from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good. 11. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to covert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. 11. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to covert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, has to be made. In the case of Mediana (1900) AC 113 Lord Halsbury held:- Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages nevertheless it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given. 12. In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL. England), Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest held thus: To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but...no other process can be devised that that of making a monetary assessment. 13. In Phillips v. Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate held thus: You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered. 14. Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure". 14. Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure". The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing", should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury. 15. McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life. 16. In R.D. Hattangadi Vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 551 , speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus : Broadly speaking, while fixing the 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 as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they shall include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the 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 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. 17. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nirmala Devi 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held: The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. 18. This Court in Brestu Ram v. Anant Ram and others. 1989(2) Sim. L.C. 298 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 of at same promoted scale. Non-pecuniary loss consists of damages awarded for pain and sufferings, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life and prospects. Under 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 the monthly income actually earned by the victim and the difference between what he would be capable to earn on disablement. It is well settled that in disablement cases 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. 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 pleasure of living. 19. The Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , has laid down the following principles:- 7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100 per cent 8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation {see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 ACJ 2867 (SC) and Yadava Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 ACJ 2713 (SC)}. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. 11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage. 12. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give 'ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. 13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. 13. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 20. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is highly excessive and not in accordance with the aforesaid law. The Tribunal has taken the word of the claimant to be the gospel truth without even verifying whether the statement of the claimant on the face of it is truthful or not. I am even also constrained to observe that there is total non-application of mind by the Tribunal. It has awarded Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant for loss of marital prospects whereas the evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner got married during the proceedings. Therefore, there is doubt in my mind as to why the petition was filed at Shimla and not at Chamba. Even on the other aspects as I shall deal later, the Tribunal has not even cared to read the entire evidence or examine the case in its proper perspective. Therefore, I have been compelled to go through the entire evidence. 21. It would also be pertinent to mention that in this case the disability certificate was issued in the year 2004 whereas the claimant underwent further treatment in 2006 and therefore, it was necessary that there should have been disability certificate issued after fresh treatment. I had accordingly directed the claimant to appear before Dr. 21. It would also be pertinent to mention that in this case the disability certificate was issued in the year 2004 whereas the claimant underwent further treatment in 2006 and therefore, it was necessary that there should have been disability certificate issued after fresh treatment. I had accordingly directed the claimant to appear before Dr. S.S. Minhas, retired Professor of Surgery, IGMC, Shimla alongwith his entire treatment on medical and had requested Dr. Minhas to submit his report with regard to the extent of disability of the claimant. He submitted his report, which with the consent of the parties was exhibited as Ext.C-1. The learned counsel for both the parties stated that they do not want to cross-examine Dr. S.S. Minhas on this aspect. 22. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, even though Shri Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has made an attempt to challenge the order of the Tribunal. I am of the considered view that the finding on the issue of negligence is just and proper especially when the driver of the Canter, namely, Shri Ramesh did not care to even step into the witness box to prove that the accident had not occurred due to his negligence. The other objection of Shri Jagdish Thakur, Advocate that the Insurance Company should not be held liable because the driver did not have a valid driving licence, is also devoid of any merit. Admittedly, the driver did produce a driving licence and Shri Amit Behal, owner of the vehicle, stated that he had examined the driving licence Ext.RW-2/B and bona fide believed that the same was correct thereafter he employed the driver. There is nothing more which the owner can do and therefore, there is no violation of the terms of the policy by the owner. 23. Coming to the issue of quantum, the relevant evidence is of PW-2, who produced the history sheet of the claimant Ext.PW-2/A, the first discharge slip Ext. PW-2/B, OPD slip Ext.PW-2/C, second discharge slip of 2004 Ext.PW-2/D and the third discharge slip of 2006 Ext.PW-2/E. The claimant while appearing as his own witness, submitted his affidavit Ext.PW-5/A and according to him after the accident took place he went to IGMC, Shimla on a hired taxi. He remained there from 23.12.2001 to 4.1.2002. Both his legs were fractured and his wrists were also injured. He remained there from 23.12.2001 to 4.1.2002. Both his legs were fractured and his wrists were also injured. According to him he visited IGMC Shimla from Chamba more than 16 times and had spent Rs. 1,25,000/- on conveyance expenses alone. He further stated that he took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from his relatives. According to him, he remained bed ridden for one year and required constant care and attention and had engaged one attendant named Kamal to help him to do his daily chores, at Rs. 2,000/- per month. He was again admitted at IGMC, Shimla on 24.4.2004 and discharged on 26.4.2004. Thereafter on 26.3.2006 he was again admitted and discharged on 31.3.2006. According to the claimant he at the relevant time was a student aged 19 years and was helping his parents in agricultural work. He also stated that he worked as a labourer in the fields of other people. He submits that his disability is 100%. He also stated that at the time of the accident he also used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. The claimant has also placed on record sufficient material to show that he was a very good sportsman and participated in various games such as long jump, kabaddi, kho-kho, athletics, wrestling etc. He states that on account of accident, he cannot take part in sports activities. Firstly, he stated that he was still dependent on his father but in the later part of his affidavit he stated that there are 7 persons dependent on him, including his wife and a two and half year old son. The claimant was cross-examined at length. He admits that his father is a government servant but conveniently stated that he was not aware whether his father had got the medical expenditure reimbursed or not. He also states that he obtained the taxi bills as and when he came to Shimla. He has denied the suggestion that the taxi bills have been manipulated at a later stage. Though he has not stated so in his affidavit, in cross-examination he stated that at the time when the accident took place he was coaching students in sports but could not produce any documentary evidence in this regard. At the time of accident he was studying in Class-X. He could not give the name of the relatives from whom he had taken loan. 24. PW-4 Dr. At the time of accident he was studying in Class-X. He could not give the name of the relatives from whom he had taken loan. 24. PW-4 Dr. Ramesh Chauhan, was the Orthopedic Surgeon who was a member of the team which treated the petitioner. According to him he was the Registrar when the claimant was first admitted in 2001. He states that the claimant was operated on 26.12.2001 and discharged on 4.1.2002. He was again admitted on 19.5.2004 for removal of K-nails on the right leg and discharged on 25.5.2004. Finally he was admitted on 27th March, 2006 for removal of K-nails on the left leg and remained admitted upto 31st March, 2006 i.e. 5 days. On 31.5.2006, the fractures were united and the claimant was never called for further treatment. The witness has stated that the claimant would have remained out of work for a period of five years due to the suffering of said injuries. According to this witness the claimant was called for follow-up treatment at least for eight occasions. The doctor also stated that the claimant required attendance of one attendant for five years. He stated that the medical board had assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 45% vide certificate Ext.PW-4/A. In cross-examination he admitted that the disability was in relation to the right lower limb. The only difficult as pointed out is that the claimant would have difficulty in standing. 25. At the outset I may state that normally this Court gives high regard to the statements of medical experts especially the doctors. However, now one is increasingly coming across such cases where for extraneous reasons, unfortunately the doctors are also not stating the whole truth. On examination of the record, I found that there is no material to support the testimony of Dr. Ramesh Chauhan that the claimant was incapable of performing any work for five years or that he required attendant for five years. Dr. Ramesh Chauhan conveniently in his examination-in-chief did not state that the disability of 45% was in relation to the right lower limb. He should have stated this in examination-in-chief itself. Therefore, as pointed out above, the claimant was sent to Dr. S.S. Minhas, who has given the following report :- Shri Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Gurdev Singh resident of village Nagri P.O. Sach Distt. He should have stated this in examination-in-chief itself. Therefore, as pointed out above, the claimant was sent to Dr. S.S. Minhas, who has given the following report :- Shri Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Gurdev Singh resident of village Nagri P.O. Sach Distt. Chamba appeared before me for the assessment of disability on 13th December, 2011. Praveen Kumar was admitted on 23rd Dec 2001 in IGMC Shimla as RSA patient and was operated in Dec 2001 for bilateral fracture shaft femur with compound fracture patella. Operation performed was - Bilateral K nailing and total patellectomy ON PHYSICAL EXAMINATION (1) Bilateral scar marks on lateral side of both thighs and transverse scar mark over right patella. (2) Wasting of right thigh and leg of 1 cm (3) Range of motion of right knee is 0 to 40 He has calculated the disability in the following manner. X-ray shows -right knee shows OA changes -metal work right side-completely removed -left side- K nail is removed and one cortical screw is still in the shaft of left Femur -both the fractures of shaft femur are well united -right patella is absent Patient is limping and walking with aid of stick Considering the facts stated above and physical examination--- patient is having permanent disability of 35% in relation to the lower limb Loss of mobility component Right knee 60%=20% loss of mobility component Muscle grade 4=20 x 03=6.33% Combination value Motion 30% 20+6.3(90-6.3) = 25.27% Strength 6.33% 90 Extra points Moderate interference in function (pain) + deep complication (OA)=10% Total + 35% 26. The report clearly shows that both the fractures are well united though the claimant is limping and walking with the aid of stick. On physical examination the assessment of the expert was that the permanent disability is 35% in relation to the right lower limb. The doctor has supported his opinion with calculation showing how this 35% disability has been assessed. The earlier disability certificate was given before the operation took place and therefore, the disability of the claimant can only be taken at 35% that too in relation to his right lower limb. The history sheet of the claimant has been placed on record as Ext.PW-2/A. The discharge slip Ext.PW-2/B shows that after his discharge on 4th January, 2002, the claimant visited the IGMC, Shimla on 19.2.2002. The petitioner was being treated by Dr. L.R. Verma. The history sheet of the claimant has been placed on record as Ext.PW-2/A. The discharge slip Ext.PW-2/B shows that after his discharge on 4th January, 2002, the claimant visited the IGMC, Shimla on 19.2.2002. The petitioner was being treated by Dr. L.R. Verma. His observation is that the fractures are united but there was some tenderness on the fractures sites on both sides. The petitioner was asked to come back after four weeks and he came on 5th April, 2002 and it was found that the fractures had united to a great extent and certain medicines were prescribed. Physiotherapy was also prescribed but it is clear that no bed rest was prescribed. There is nothing to show that the claimant after he was discharged could not walk with the help of crutches. He may have been unable to work for some months due to fracture of the leg but the finding of the Tribunal and the opinion of Dr. Ramesh Chauhan that he was unable to work for five years is a preposterous finding not based on any evidence. 27. I am constrained to observe that even Dr. Ramesh Chauhan is definitely telling an untruth and his evidence is not supported by the material on record. It is a well known fact that now a days in cases of fracture, surgical implants such as K-nails are implanted to help unite the fracture. After the implants are made the person virtually carries on with his life though with slight restrictions and thereafter after a few years these surgical implants are removed. The fact that there are surgical implants in the body does not make the person incapable of working or earning his livelihood. 28. I also found that the testimony of the claimant is full of falsehood. His father was a government servant entitled to grant of reimbursement of medical expenses of his dependants but the claimant cleverly avoided to make any reference either in his claim petition or while giving the evidence but when a direct question was put to him by me in Court, the claimant admitted that he is a married and has a small child and that his father had been reimbursed medical expenses to the extent of about Rs. 40,000/-. 29. In the light of the aforesaid law and the evidence led in this case, the compensation has to be assessed in injury cases. 40,000/-. 29. In the light of the aforesaid law and the evidence led in this case, the compensation has to be assessed in injury cases. A. Medical Expenses As far as actual medical expenses are concerned, it is apparent that the claimant's father has been reimbursed most, if not all, the medical expenses. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that in such cases there are some medicines which are not reimbursed by the department and at times all the bills are not kept. Keeping in view all these factors, Rs. 10,000/- is awarded for medical expenses over and above those which have been reimbursed. B. Transportation expenses As far as the transportation expenses are concerned, the claimant initially came to Shimla and he must have come in a taxi/ambulance even for the next 2-3 years when he came to IGMC, Shimla for treatment he in all probabilities could not have sat in a bus. However, thereafter when the petitioner came again in the year 2004 and later there was nothing which prevented the claimant from coming in a bus. The claimant has produced two sets of receipts of his transportation expenses. The first set is on the bill book of one Karam Chand. Interestingly one receipt is dated 31.3.2006 and the second is dated 22.2.2010 but, the same are in the same handwriting and appear to have been prepared by one and the same person. There is a second set of receipts issued on the bill books of Sharma Tour & Travels. These receipts are dated 26.4.2004, 24.4.2004, 1.4.2006, 26.3.2006 and 9.4.2006. These receipts are purported to have been issued by some other person and the name of the driver and the driver's signatures are different in different receipts but the handwriting and the figures are in one and same hand. This clearly shows that these receipts have been manufactured at a later date. Even so the claimant will be entitled to some amount as compensation for transportation. Even in the year 2001 a taxi from Chamba to Shimla and back would not cost less than Rs. 5,000/- and keeping in view the fact that at least three trips were made Rs. 15,000/- is awarded for taxi expenses. The claimant thereafter had visited Shimla at least on 8 to 10 occasions. Even in the year 2001 a taxi from Chamba to Shimla and back would not cost less than Rs. 5,000/- and keeping in view the fact that at least three trips were made Rs. 15,000/- is awarded for taxi expenses. The claimant thereafter had visited Shimla at least on 8 to 10 occasions. On different occasions even had traveled by bus he would not only have traveled to Shimla but would have spent money on the way and back and since eight trips have been made at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per trip he is awarded Rs. 12,000/- i.e. Rs. 27,000/- in total for transportation expenses. C. Attendant charges Coming to attendant charges, the claim of the claimant that he has paid Rs. 1,20,000/- at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to one Shri Kamal is totally false and preposterous. Said Shri Kamal has not been examined in the witness box. Here is a claimant who on the one hand claims that he is a very poor person and has taken loan from his relatives for his treatment but on the other hand he had hired an attendant at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The petitioner conveniently ignored to tell the Court that his father was a government servant. As discussed above neither the medical history nor the OPD slips etc. of the claimant indicate that he had hired an attendant. However, the claimant is entitled to attendant charges for the period when he was hospitalized and also for the period when he could not have done any work. The claimant remained in hospital on three occasions for a total period of 13 days, 6 days and 4 days, respectively i.e. 23 days in all. In addition thereto, on these three occasions he must have been accompanied by one or two attendants from Chamba i.e. two attendants would be required for one month. These attendants would be required to be provided boarding and lodging at Shimla also. Keeping in view the various aspects, it would not be reasonable to assess the cost of two attendants at Shimla at an average of Rs. 500/-per day or Rs. 15,000/- in all. These attendants would be required to be provided boarding and lodging at Shimla also. Keeping in view the various aspects, it would not be reasonable to assess the cost of two attendants at Shimla at an average of Rs. 500/-per day or Rs. 15,000/- in all. As far as the attendant otherwise are concerned, keeping in consideration all the evidence I think that a part time attendant may have been required for only about 2 or 3 months after hospitalization and for this a total compensation of Rs. 5000/- is sufficient. Therefore, the total compensation payable under this head works out to Rs. 20,000/- D. Loss of income The claimant has been awarded Rs. 2,70,000/- for loss of actual income and Rs. 4,37,400/- for the loss of future income. As stated by the claimant himself, he at the relevant time was only a student in Class-X. Even he had been helping his parents in the fields etc., the loss of income if any had to be assessed only for about six months at the most. Since he was a student he could have been helping his parents all day long and taking all factors into consideration at best the claimant can be awarded Rs. 10,000/- for loss of past income. E. Loss of future income As far as the future income is concerned, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 4500/- per month and assessed the loss at 45% and calculated the same. In Raj Kumar's case (supra) the Apex Court, where the disability was 45% to the left lower limb, assessed the loss of future earning capacity at 20%. Even though in the present case, the assessment of loss of disability is 35% keeping in view the facts of the present case and the fact that the claimant had to do more manual work, I assess the loss of income at 25%. The income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 45,00/- per month is also excessive. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the accident had taken place in 2001 and it is the prospects at that stage which had to be taken into consideration. In 2001, the daily wages were about Rs. 70/- per day or Rs. 2500/- per month but keeping in view the future prospects it would not be unreasonable to take the income at Rs. In 2001, the daily wages were about Rs. 70/- per day or Rs. 2500/- per month but keeping in view the future prospects it would not be unreasonable to take the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month and 25% of the same works out to Rs. 1,000/- per month or Rs. 12,000/- per year. Since the claimant was only 19 years multiplier of 18 is applied the compensation under this head works out to Rs. 2,16,000/-. F. Pains and suffering As far as the pain and suffering is concerned, the claimant having remained in hospital for about 23 days and having had to undergo continuous treatment over 5 years in my opinion the claimant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. G. Loss of amenities of life and future discomfort The claimant must be awarded a separate amount for the loss of amenities of life and future discomfort. The claimant was an active sports person. He is unable to play sports. He has to limp throughout the rest of his life Normally in such cases one would have awarded about Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- but keeping in view the fact that the claimant was extremely an active sports person and now he cannot take part in any such activities, in my opinion it would be just and reasonable to award Rs. 1,50,000/-. 30. The total compensation under all the heads is as follows : Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/- Transportation Charges Rs.27,000/- Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/- Loss of actual income Rs.10,000/- Loss of future income Rs.2,16,000/- Pain & suffering Rs.50,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.1,50,000 Total 4,83,000/- 31. In view of above discussion, the award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and the compensation awarded to the claimant reduced from Rs. 9,93,400/- to Rs. 4,83,000/-. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the amount is deposited. Lower rate of interest has been awarded since almost half of the compensation is on account of future loss of income. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 32. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who shall convey it to Dr. Ramesh Chauhan, who, I am told, is presently posted at Hamirpur. Dr. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 32. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who shall convey it to Dr. Ramesh Chauhan, who, I am told, is presently posted at Hamirpur. Dr. Ramesh Chauhan is directed to be careful in future and he must ensure that he gives the disability certificates and findings strictly in accordance with the material on record. In case, any other case comes to the notice of this Court where he is found telling an untruth, this Court shall not hesitate in directing that strict disciplinary action be taken against him. This judgment shall be kept on the service book of the concerned Doctor.