JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. 1. This appeal and cross-objection by the Insurance Company and the claimants respectively would relate to a judgment and decree dated June 13, 2006 passed by the Tribunal awarding rupees seven lacs in favour of the claimants. 2. The records would depict that claimant became permanently partially disabled when he met with an accident caused through the offending vehicle insured under the Insurance Company named above. Facts would also depict that the claimant being a member of Border Security Force was treated in the Military Hospital. His discharge certificate would show that the fracture was cured and the wound was healthy when he was discharged from the Hospital. He joined his service and got pay hike from time to time that came in usual course. 3. The Insurance Company claimed that once he got pay hike there was no loss of income because of the alleged disability. Hence, there could not be any pecuniary damage. The Tribunal erred in awarding pecuniary damage that was not permissible. The claimant was unhappy as according to him he was ultimately discharged from service being declared medically unfit due to the injury caused to him by the said accident. Facts would depict such discharge was made four years after the accident. The Medical Board however observed that he was declared unfit because of the injury. 4. The respondent, subsequently, filed an application for adducing additional evidence. By the said application, the respondent brought on record an order of discharge passed by the Border Security Force Authority on January 2, 2008. On perusal of the said order, it appears that a Medical Board medically examined him on November 28, 2006. He was, subsequently, re-examined on October 1, 2007 when he was found disabled to the extent of fifty per cent. Considering such disability, he was declared medically unfit and discharged from service with effect from January 31, 2008. 5. Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs- Yudhvir Singh and Anr. reported in 2008 Accident Claims Journal Page-2131. Mr. Singh contended that if this Court was otherwise convinced with the form and extent of disability it may award just compensation. However, while awarding compensation the Court must not ignore the aspect that there was no loss of income. 6. On the question of discharge Mr. reported in 2008 Accident Claims Journal Page-2131. Mr. Singh contended that if this Court was otherwise convinced with the form and extent of disability it may award just compensation. However, while awarding compensation the Court must not ignore the aspect that there was no loss of income. 6. On the question of discharge Mr. Singh contended that such discharge was made four years after the accident. Hence, it could not have any nexus with the same. On perusal of the decision in the case of Rajesh Kumar (Supra) we find that the injured was a mechanic aged about thirty-four years. His 1/3rd of the lower limb was amputed. Question cropped up whether the formula as prescribed in the Workmen Compensation Act could be applied. The Apex Court considered the issue and observed that reference to the Workmen Compensation Act was only for the purpose of Section 163A(I). The same could not be applied in a case under Section 166 the said Act. Their Lordships also observed that in case of Workmen Compensation Act could be applied the rules made thereunder would also be applicable. However, considering the factual matrix, the Apex Court declined to interfere in the said case. 7. In an accident when a victim sustained injury and that injury caused him physically handicapped because of disability, two types of compensation would arise, one being non-pecuniary damage and the other being pecuniary damage. In a case of non-pecuniary damage, the Tribunal would consider the pain and suffering and the trauma, the victim had after the accident followed by a prolonged treatment. Such pain and sufferings and/or the trauma may not have any bearing on his income that would however, not permit the Insurance Company to deny him just compensation. 8. In addition to the non-pecuniary damage in view of such accident and/or disability, if the victim became unfit to maintain his means of livelihood either wholly or in part or such eventuality affects his income the Tribunal would definitely try to compensate him for such loss that is termed as pecuniary damage. In the instant case it came out in evidence that the injured victim did not have any loss of income because of such injury rather there was pay hike. He was declared unfit from service long after the accident. The co-relation was not established hence, in our view, the Tribunal could not have awarded any pecuniary damage. In the instant case it came out in evidence that the injured victim did not have any loss of income because of such injury rather there was pay hike. He was declared unfit from service long after the accident. The co-relation was not established hence, in our view, the Tribunal could not have awarded any pecuniary damage. Mr. Banik strenuously contended that his discharge was caused due to physical disability. 9. He referred to the opinion of the Medical Board. We however, find that there was no attempt by the injured to prove the co-relation through appropriate evidence. Mere opinion given in the order of discharge would not be sufficient for the Court to take it as sacrosanct. We have examined the evidence that was led by Dr. Kalyan Kumar Mukherjee, the Chief of the Medical Board who deposed that the victim had a Fracture Shaft of Right Tibia. They considered the Specialist opinion of the Orthopaedic Surgeon. They ultimately declared him disabled. From the medical documents, it is clear that he suffered fracture injury due to the accident. Ultimately he was discharged. From the evidence of the victim we, however, find that even at the time of adducing evidence before the Tribunal there was no financial loss as he was still in service. 10. The discharge as claimed by the victim was much after the accident and after the award of the Tribunal. Even on perusal of the Memorandum of Cross Objection we do not find any assertion on that score. Pertinent to note, the cross-objection was filed in 2006 when he was still in service. 11. Hence, we are of the view that the subsequent incident could not have a bearing on the present appeal or the cross-objection. Coming to the question of non-pecuniary damage, we are of the view that considering the medical opinion as observed by the experts just and appropriate compensation must be awarded to the claimant that would however, not have bearing on the question of loss of income or loss of earning capacity. 12. The Tribunal awarded compensation against loss of earning capacity that was erroneous. 12. The Tribunal awarded compensation against loss of earning capacity that was erroneous. Considering the background, we feel it appropriate to award him a lump sum compensation of rupees five lacs together with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on the said sum from the date of making of the claim application till the date of deposit. 13. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the said sum along with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on and from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual payment/deposit, to the claimants to be sent through Account Payee Cheque at their recorded address by registered post with acknowledgement due within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 14. The Insurance Company would be at liberty to withdraw the sum, if any, deposited in Court after making payment to the claimant. The appeal and cross-objection are disposed. 15. Of accordingly without any order as to costs. Lower Court Records be sent down at once, if arrived at. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.