Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral) 1. The appellant has instituted this appeal against the judgment of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal challenging inadequacy of compensation awarded to the appellant herein, who was injured in accident in the intervening night of 14th/15th April, 2005 when he was travelling in Mini Bus No. HP-63-0321 owned by the 1st respondent. 2. The pleading before the learned Tribunal was that this bus met with an accident near T.P.T. Light Point in Sector 26, Chandigarh when it was being driven at fast speed by 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the driver lost control and collided with another bus No.HP-07-4910 which was coming from the opposite side. The appellant lost consciousness and he was shifted to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh (P.G.I. for short) where he remained hospitalized from 15.4.2005 to 17.4.2005 whereafter he was treated in Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla (I.G.M.C. for short) and Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Shimla (D.D.U for short) for a period of about six months. The petitioner claimed total compensation to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- which included the component of Rs. 35,000/- for his treatment, Rs.75,000/- for keeping an attendant, special diet and transportation etc. and Rs.60,000/-on account of leave encashment etc. and compensation for disability suffered to him as a result of the injury. 3. The first two respondents did not prefer any reply before the Tribunal. It was only respondent No.3, who contested the petition on a number of grounds. There were four settled issues before the learned Tribunal, the most crucial being as to whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the third respondent and the second on the quantum of compensation. The respondents pleaded that the petition was not maintainable on a number of grounds. 4. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced on record awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,11,997/- as just and reasonable compensation and on the issue of maintainability, held against the respondents. I also note from the record that no evidence was produced on behalf of the respondent save and except that of RW1 Gopal Singh (respondent No.3 herein). 3,11,997/- as just and reasonable compensation and on the issue of maintainability, held against the respondents. I also note from the record that no evidence was produced on behalf of the respondent save and except that of RW1 Gopal Singh (respondent No.3 herein). He simply stated that he was deputed to drive the bus involved in the accident from Shimla to Chandigarh and when he was negotiating a curve at Sector 26 in Chandigarh, another bus came from the opposite side but this bus collided with his bus causing the accident which resulted in the injury. He stated that he was driving with due care and caution. He admitted that F.I.R. Ext.PW1/A was registered in the Police Station, Chandigarh on the basis of which a case was filed against him in the Court at Chandigarh. No case was registered against the driver of bus No.HP-07-4910 which also belonged to the H.R.T.C. On the other evidence on record, the learned Tribunal holds that PW1 M.H.C. Sushil Kumar has proved on record F.I.R. Ext. PW1/A with respect to the accident in which the appellant was injured and pursuant to which case under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. and under the relevant provision of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the third respondent on the allegation that the accident had resulted in injury etc. by the direct outcome of rash and negligent acts committed by respondent No.3. In this case, the appellant herein was cited as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. 5. The petitioner appeared as PW11 corroborating the facts pleaded by him including publication of the news item relating to the accident in ‘Danik Bhaskar’ Ext.PW11/A. He states that after injury he became unconsciousness and he was rushed P.G.I. where he remained admitted for two days. This fact was corroborated by PW10 Dr.Sudesh Rebum, Assistant Professor, P.G.I, Chandigarh, who proved discharge card Ext.PW10/A. According to the doctor, he had suffered fracture scapula (left) with fracture in the inter candylar femur (left side). He also stated that the leg of the appellant remained in plaster for eight weeks. Ext.PW10/B is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board certifying that the appellant is physically handicapped and has 45% impairment of his limbs. Reassessment was not recommended. The certificate has been signed by PW10 Dr.Sudesh Rebum. Ext.PW10/A proves his hospitalization. He also stated that the leg of the appellant remained in plaster for eight weeks. Ext.PW10/B is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board certifying that the appellant is physically handicapped and has 45% impairment of his limbs. Reassessment was not recommended. The certificate has been signed by PW10 Dr.Sudesh Rebum. Ext.PW10/A proves his hospitalization. The petitioner has also placed on record treatment slips of I.G.M.C. and D.D.U. Hospital. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that despite their being adequate evidence on record, the learned Tribunal was remiss in scaling down the amount awarded. Learned counsel refers to the evidence of PW4 Sh.Sanjeev Sharma stated on oath that he remained as an attendant of the injured from April 2005 to April 2007. He states that after October, 2005 he was paid Rs. 3000/- per month and thereafter Rs.3,500/- In addition, he states that he was provided boarding and lodging by the appellant. The wife of the appellant remained with him for some time and thereafter she went to the village to attend agriculture work etc. He used to take the petitioner to the hospital, dropping him there and then bringing him back home. He has been cross-examined but nothing material has emerged. He proves on record receipts Ext.PW4/1 to Ext.PW4/Y totaling Rs. 80,500/-. There is no effective cross-examination and considering the nature of the injury suffered by the petitioner and the fact that the attendant was constantly looking after him, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not have been awarded this entire amount. What I find from the judgment is that a sum of Rs.60,000/- on account of attendance has been awarded which cannot be sustained. 7. Adverting to the second issue, the learned counsel submits that he had spent more than Rs. 89,000/- on travelling which amount has been reduced to Rs. 30,000/- by the learned Tribunal. The bills Ext.PW6/A to Ext.PW6/K have been proved on record by PW6 Naresh Kumar, who was the owner of the vehicle in which the petitioner travelled and PW8 Gian Chand was the owner of the taxi in which the petitioner was travelling. I find no effective cross-examination of these witnesses. The learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 30,000/- on account of conveyance charges. I find that the Tribunal has taken a very hyper technical approach in scaling down this amount. I find no effective cross-examination of these witnesses. The learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 30,000/- on account of conveyance charges. I find that the Tribunal has taken a very hyper technical approach in scaling down this amount. Two witnesses as noticed (supra) have categorically stated that they have received these amounts. The learned Tribunal finds nothing in the evidence of these witnesses which contradicts their version proved by documentary evidence. I accordingly hold that the petitioner would be entitled for a sum of Rs. 85,000/-on account of conveyance charges. 8. On the third aspect of loss, the learned Tribunal holds at the time of the accident that the claimant was aged about 40 years and was working as a Senior Assistant in the Directorate of agriculture Himachal Pradesh. He had a period of about 8 years of service. He has been given reassessment for all purchase of medicines. It was the case of the appellant that he has lost capacity to enjoy normal amenities of life and his future prospects were damaged. He has 45% disability certified by the top medical institution of the Country. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the loss of supervisory service of agricultural holding. 9. The principles governing grant of compensation in case of injury have now settled by the Supreme Court in Govind Yadav Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2012 ACJ, 28, holding: “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. Majority of them cannot, due to sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, engage competent lawyers for proving negligence of the wrongdoer in adequate measure. 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, 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 nonpecuniary 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) 10. The evidence of the appellant that he was supervising/assisting his wife in carrying on agriculture activity and that he was supplementing the family income has remained un-rebutted. I do not find any evidence on the record that the appellant has been debarred from earning future increment or promotion in his service career though he has been crippled for the rest of his life. In other words, the permanent nature of the crippling injuries stands proved. I do not find any evidence on the record that the appellant has been debarred from earning future increment or promotion in his service career though he has been crippled for the rest of his life. In other words, the permanent nature of the crippling injuries stands proved. A sum of Rs.30,000/- has been granted on account of supplemented income which he was earning though the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 40,000/- for loss of amenities and future prospective. Since the evidence of the appellant on the point of loss of earnings because of incapacity to supervisory service has been established on the record, I find a sum of Rs.30,000/- is a paltry amount. Considering the total award made, it would be in the fitness of things in case another sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the appellant on this account. I direct that an additional sum of Rs. 20,500/- on account of salary of attendant Rs.55,800/- on account of transportation charges and Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of supervisory capacity in agriculture work assisting his wife is awarded. In all, additional sum of Rs.96,300/- is awarded to the appellant. This amount shall carry interest at the rate granted by the learned Tribunal. The award is modified accordingly.