JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. These four appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of the same accident. 2. Two appeals FAO No. 298 of 2011, titled National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Prem Verma and another and FAO No. 299 of 2011, titled National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Harish Singh Negi and another have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum awarded, whereas the claimants in FAO No. 209 of 2011, titled Prem Verma vs. National Insurance Company Limited & another and FAO No. 212 of 2011 titled Harish Singh Negi vs. Sat Pal and another have challenged the adequacy of compensation granted. 3. The facts which are not disputed are (a) the factum of accident and (b) the injuries which have been sustained by the claimants. It is the method for computation of damages which is challenged by both the appellants in all the appeals. 4. Adverting to the facts of the case, Shri Prem Verma is working as Reader in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. Shri Harish Singh Negi is working as Additional District Attorney in the District Courts at Shimla. On 11.7.2008 both the petitioners were travelling in Tata Spacio vehicle bearing No. HP-62-1157, which met with an accident while it was on way from Chopal to Shimla. The learned Tribunal on the facts holds that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent acts of the driver who also happens to be the owner of the vehicle. He was proceeded ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. 5. Compensation of Rs. 4,52,000/- was awarded to Shri Prem Verma who had suffered injuries in the upper portion of his left arm. PW4 Dr. Lokesh Thakur, Assistant Professor Orthopedic Surgery, IGMC, Shimla had treated him from 11.7.2008 to 13.8.2008. Surgery was conducted on the injured by this witness. Ext.PW2/A is the indoor treatment record of the petitioner. PW4 Dr. Lokesh Thakur was a member of the medical board who examined the petitioner on 19.8.2009. The petitioner-claimant had suffered multiple fractures in the left arm, wrist, hand and disability thereof was of permanent character which was assessed as 42% in disability certificate Ext.PW2/C. The case of the petitioner therein was that he had suffered a loss quantified at Rs. 10 lacs. While awarding the compensation the learned Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. The petitioner-claimant had suffered multiple fractures in the left arm, wrist, hand and disability thereof was of permanent character which was assessed as 42% in disability certificate Ext.PW2/C. The case of the petitioner therein was that he had suffered a loss quantified at Rs. 10 lacs. While awarding the compensation the learned Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- on account of loss of future income, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, mental stress, dejection, frustration etc. In all a sum of Rs. 4,52,000/- was awarded. 6. In the case of Shri Harish Singh Negi, he was examined by PW2 Dr. Manoj Thakur, Associate Professor Orthopedic Surgery who stated that on 14.7.2008 he was admitted with communicated fracture of medial mallelous left side. He stated that the claimant was operated on 15.7.2008 by him in form of debridement with ORIF with Tension Band writing (T.B.W). He was discharged on 30.7.2008 and he had attended the OPD on different dates. Ext.PW2/A was the discharge slip. Disability certificate was proved as Ext.PW2/B. In cross examination Dr.Thakur stated that the injuries have no adverse effect on his job and daily activities. Adverting to Ext.PW2/B which is the disability certificate the injury has been described as disability to the extent of 20% in relation to the left lower limb. 7. In the case of Shri Prem Verma, disability certificate Ext.PW2/C shows 42% disability in relation to upper limb. PW4 Dr. Lokesh Thakur states that as a part of surgical process, he had applied plate left humorous of the petitioner and after healing, it is optional for him to have the plate removed. This plate does not cause any harm/injury to the petitioner for the rest of his life. 8. The law with respect to grant of compensation as damages for injuries has been settled by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar 2011 ACJ 1 the Supreme Court holds: 9. Subsequently, in Govind Yadav vs. New India Assurance “13. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) A 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. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) A 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.” (at p. 9) Co. Ltd. 2012 ACJ 28 the Court holds: “10…….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 p. 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 nonpecuniary 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, mental stress and frustration 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 a the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." 11. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, 2010 ACJ 38 (SC), the three-Judge Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.1 crore, the Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act: "(39) We must emphasise that the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-Rs.-vis a family in a case of death. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-Rs.-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity." (emphasis supplied) 12. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422 , this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: "The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in a situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. It is, therefore, difficult for any court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in a situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken into consideration including education of the dependants and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Jashuben 2008 ACJ 1097 (SC) held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration who y incorrect? Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard-and-fast rule, however, can be laid down therefor." (emphasis supplied) 13. In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited (2010) 10 SCC 254 , the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed: "We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of a damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of a damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has su ered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered." (emphasis supplied) 14. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Court considered some of the precedents and held: "The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fu y and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as heused to earn or could have earned. (5) The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life." (emphasis supplied) 15. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by a 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 e orts 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. (at pp. 32-34) 10. It is taking into consideration these principles that the compensation has to be worked out. I find from the judgment of the learned Tribunal that the award in lump sum without considering all these aspects. In the case of Shri Harish Singh Negi, who is a Public Prosecutor, the learned Tribunal classified the factors under pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. A sum of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded on account of medical treatment. The learned Court then holds that he was forced to proceed on leave for 100 days though there was no evidence on record to support this. The learned Tribunal holds that he was admitted in IGMC for two weeks and even after discharge, he was required to take rest. He had suffered multiple fractures of the left leg and his earning was Rs. 25000/- per month. On this count, the learned Tribunal awards Rs. 75,000/-. The learned Tribunal holds that he was admitted in IGMC for two weeks and even after discharge, he was required to take rest. He had suffered multiple fractures of the left leg and his earning was Rs. 25000/- per month. On this count, the learned Tribunal awards Rs. 75,000/-. The Court holds that the injured required the services of an attendant for three months and was under great agony and in these circumstances, he was granted a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs was awarded for pecuniary damages and in all a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/-. I find that this is most unsatisfactory manner in disposing of the claim which should and ought to have been based on the settled law. 11. My attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Rashila Ram Kaushal vs. Ranjit Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1891where this Court holds: “4. Whenever in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it comes out as an admitted fact that a person has suffered permanent disability on account of an injury caused to him by or through an accident involving a motor vehicle, whether such permanent disability has a direct or indirect bearing, or it has no direct or indirect bearing, or relation, or any adverse influence on his profession, the fact remains that on account of suffering of a permanent disability the person becomes entitled to the grant of some amount of compensation. Undoubtedly, if the suffering of permanent disability results in some adverse consequence on the profession of the person injured, the compensation amount necessarily has to be higher, but that does not detract the court from awarding compensation, of course, of a lesser quantum of the permanent disability has been suffered, even though it may not have any adverse affect on the professional capability of the injured. I am saying so because suffering of a permanent disability is a physical liability which the injured has to carry for the rest of his life and for that he is to be adequately compensated. I am saying so because suffering of a permanent disability is a physical liability which the injured has to carry for the rest of his life and for that he is to be adequately compensated. Of course, if the permanent disability has an adverse affect on the profession or occupation of the injured, apart from having to suffer for the rest of his life on account of this permanent disability, he also suffers in discharge of his professional obligations and for that additional suffering he has to be additionally compensated. 5. Based on the aforesaid observations, therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter and committed a material omission in not awarding compensation to the injured for his suffering on account of permanent disability.” (at p. 1892-1893) 12. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 37,000/-was allowed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in P.N. Palani vs. Mico Plast Industries and another 2001 ACJ 1007 where the injured had been granted compensation for the period of leave availed. The Court holds: “5. It is not in dispute that what the claimant had availed of was the privilege leave and at the time he retires from service he will not be in a position to encash the same. This would, therefore, entitle the claimant to be paid a salary for the five months period when he was treated in the hospital. It is not disputed that his salary during the five months period amounts to a sum of Rs. 32,750. The total thus comes to a sum of Rs. 86,750.” (atp.1008) 13. In the present case, I do not find any evidence which established on record that the injured had applied for leave which was adjusted against his leave encashment. No doubt, the petitioner had suffered multiple fractures on the left leg but there is no evidence that it in any manner resulted in deduction of his salary or further promotion. In these circumstances, amount of Rs. 75,000/- granted for loss of salary during the leave period cannot be made a part of the award as there is no evidence on record to suggest this. On the loss of future earnings, I find that there is no evidence on record to support this finding that Rs. 25,000/- was required to be paid. 75,000/- granted for loss of salary during the leave period cannot be made a part of the award as there is no evidence on record to suggest this. On the loss of future earnings, I find that there is no evidence on record to support this finding that Rs. 25,000/- was required to be paid. The award does not grant anything for pain and suffering. 14. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that it would be in the fitness of things, if the award is reduced to Rs. 1,90,000/- as compensation under all heads including pain and suffering, discomfort and medical attendant. In these circumstances, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- in all is awarded along with costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the appeal till its payment. Both appeals are accordingly disposed of accordingly. The award of learned Tribunal is modified to this extent. 15. Adverting to the case of Shri Prem Verma, I cannot persuade myself to sustain the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the award is excessibly high. The manner in which the learned Court below has proceeded to award compensation cannot be sustained in law. Here again, the claimant is an employee of the Court and there was no evidence as to what kind of leave he had availed. It was urged that his agricultural holdings had suffered because of the fact that he had to engage the services of another person to look after his agricultural holdings. There is no evidence on record with respect to this. In these circumstances, considering the principles supra, there seems no evidence that he suffers any disability in future for attending his court work. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things, if the amount is reduced and a sum of Rs.2lac is awarded in all. This amount has been awarded keeping in view the fact that pain and suffering must be quite intense as the claimant had suffered prolonged hospitalization, insertion of plate etc. This amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the appeal till its payment. All appeals stand disposed of.