JUDGMENT :- This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant, having been aggrieved, against the order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVOP No.97 of 2001 dated 3.9.2004, awarding compensation of Rs.5,457/- (Rupees five thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for, in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Heard Sri V. Atchuta Ram, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited. The 1st respondent despite served with notice called absent with no representation. Taken as heard the 1st respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal was erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from the nature of the injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance therefrom and treatment undergone, amount incurred for the same and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for. 4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are : 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? Point 1: 5. The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 22.11.2000, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 T 8531) belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex. Point 1: 5. The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 22.11.2000, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 T 8531) belongs to the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex. A7 policy, same dashed against the passenger jeep bearing No. AP 28M 8437 in which the claimant by name Sri Syed Chouse Pasha, aged 26 years, resident of Darulshafa, Hyderabad, an electrician by avocation along with his wife and child were proceeding, as a result, he sustained three injuries viz., a lacerated injury of 1 x 1 cm on left frontal region of scalp, an abrasion over right knee and an abrasion over right leg at maxillary region (as per Ex.A3 discharge card), which occurrence is covered by Ex. A1 First Information Report in Cr.No.155 of 2000 under Section 337 IPC and Ex.A2 is charge-sheet. As per the claimant-PW1's evidence coupled with Ex.A3 discharge-sheet, he sustained grievous injuries and spent Rs.6000/- (Six thousand rupees only) for treatment of said injuries and filed Ex.A6 bunch of bills only for Rs.257-26ps (Rupees two hundred and fifty seven rupees twenty six paise only). However, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, having found said injuries described in Ex.P3 sustained by PW1 are only simple in nature, for the same and for medical expenses and treatment in all simply awarded Rs.5,457/- (Rupees five thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) as compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the claimant in support of the grounds of the appeal that the compensation awarded is unjust, unreasonable and the Tribunal is erred in awarding such a meager amount though it was supposed to award just compensation by taking consideration of the nature of injuries referred in Ex.A3 disclosing one is a grievous injury out of the three injuries and proved by the evidence of PW1 with reference to it and from Ex.A6 bills, from nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings and for the treatment required though not believed any permanent disability to apply multiplier method of structured formula. 7. 7. Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All. ER 563, it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairn1ent, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what compensation would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its pem1anent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle Red House Credit v. Tolly, 1963 (2) All. ER 432, remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver, 1969 (1) All. ER 555, observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, CA Nos. 1799 and 1800 of 1989 with SLP (Civil) 4586 of 1989 reported in 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), at Paragraph No.12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work; 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 standard. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. 8. From the above legal position, coming to the factual matrix, what the Tribunal taking into consideration of injuries sustained by the claimant as per Ex.A3 original discharge card and also loss of earnings during period of treatment, awarded of Rs.5,457/- as compensation is low and unjust. On perusal of the record and as per the Ex.A3 discharge card the claimant sustained a lacerated injury of lcm x lcm on left frontal region of scalp, an abrasion over right knee and an abrasion over right leg at maxillary region, and spent Rs.257-26ps as per Ex.A6 bunch of bills. The claimant's evidence shows that in all he incurred Rs.10,000/-, but the same is not believed by the Tribunal basing on Ex.A6 bills and awarded the said amount mentioned in the bills. 9. Having regard to the above, by taking consideration of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment undergone, pain and sufferance; an amount of Rs.6000/- for the lacerated injury left frontal region of scalp, Rs.2000/- each for the abrasion over right knee and abrasion over right leg at maxille region and Rs.2,000/- for medical expenses and treatment and in all Rs.12,000/- is just and reasonable to award. Coming to the rate of interest, though the interest at 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal even not in dispute, from the settled proposition of law in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya, (2005) 6 SCC 236 , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) = 2009 ACJ 1298 and from the latest expression of the apex Court in Rajesh v. Ranabir Singh, 2013 (4) ALT 35 (SC), interest is awarded at 7½% per annum by modifying and reducing from 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point 1 for consideration is answered. Point 2: 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs.5,457/- (Five thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) to Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) with interest at 7½% per annum from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit said amount with interest within one month from today, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.