JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Appellant has questioned the award, dated 22nd January, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II) Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in MAC Petition No. 57 of 2004, titled as Raksha Devi versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.88,031/- with interest @ 6% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant and against respondent No. 1-insurer-United Insurance Company, from the date of the claim petition till its realization, (for short “the impugned award”), on the ground of adequacy. Brief Facts: 2. In order to determine the issue, it is necessary to give a flash back of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the instant appeal. 3. Smt. Raksha Devi/claimant/injured has invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short “the MV Act”), being victim of the vehicular accident, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-, as per the breaks-up given in the claim petition. 4. The claimant/appellant has pleaded in the claim petition that driver Jagan Nath has driven vehicle-bus bearing registration No. HP-21-0725, rashly and negligently on 10th May, 2003, in which she was traveling and caused accident near Booni Tehsil Nadaul, District Hamirpur (HP), at about 3.30 p.m. FIR No. 77/2003, under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and 184 of the MV Act was registered in Police Station, Nadaun; she suffered multiple grievous injuries and two fractures on her left arm, rendered her permanently disabled, which has made her life miserable because she is not in a position to do any household work. She was under treatment in Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur, was referred to Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (Punjab) where she remained indoor patient and has spent about Rs. 2,00,000/- on her medical treatment. 5. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their objections. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 11.05.2005 : “1. Whether the petitioner Raksha Devi on 10.5.2003 while traveling on bus bearing No. HP-21-0725, suffered injuries when the bus met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as alleged? …OPP 2. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 11.05.2005 : “1. Whether the petitioner Raksha Devi on 10.5.2003 while traveling on bus bearing No. HP-21-0725, suffered injuries when the bus met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 proved, whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? …OPR-1 4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? …OPR-3 5. Whether petition is not maintainable? ….OPR-3 6. Relief.” 6. The claimant examined Dr. Dinesh Thakur, (PW1), Dr. Anil Kumar Dhiman (PW-3), MHC Kuldeep Chand (PW-4) and Shri Gorakh Ram (PW-5). Claimant Raksha Devi also appeared in the witness box as PW-2. The insurer-Insurance Company examined Shri Hari Chand (RW-1), Shri Shashi Pal (RW-2) and Shri Om Parkash Gupta (RW-4). Insured-owner also appeared in the witness box as RW-3. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, made the impugned award and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 88,031/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 8. The insured-owner, the driver and the insurer-Insurance Company have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 9. The only question, which arises for determination in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is just or inadequate? Issue No. 1 10. I have gone through the impugned award, pleadings and the evidence available on the record. The claimant has proved by leading evidence that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly or negligently, on the fateful day, caused the accident, in which she sustained injuries which rendered her permanently disabled. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 3 11. Onus to prove this issue was upon the insurer-Insurance Company, but it failed to discharge the same. The findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No. 4 & 5 12. The owner-insured had to prove these issues, but he failed to lead any evidence to prove the same. Issue No. 3 11. Onus to prove this issue was upon the insurer-Insurance Company, but it failed to discharge the same. The findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No. 4 & 5 12. The owner-insured had to prove these issues, but he failed to lead any evidence to prove the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. Issue No. 2. 13. The claimant while appearing in the witness box as PW-2 has deposed that she was injured in the accident; was admitted in the hospital; had spent about Rs. 2,50,000/- on her treatment and is not in a position to perform domestic works. 14. PW-1 Dinesh Thakur, who was a member of the Medical Board, has issued Permanent Disability Certificate Ex. PW-1/A in favour of the claimant; has suffered 30% permanent disability; is not in a position to perform any domestic work with her left arm and the bones of her left arm have also not been properly adjusted and joined. 15. The Tribunal has awarded a meager amount while ignoring the injuries suffered by the claimant/victim and affect of the said injuries, which has made her life miserable. She has undergone pain and suffering and has to undergo it forever. 16. The question is - how to grant compensation in such injury cases? The concept of granting compensation is outcome of Law of Torts. The Tribunal, while considering the case for grant of compensation, has to do some guess work. 17. The Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , had discussed all aspects and laid down guidelines how a guess work is to be done and how compensation is to be awarded under various heads. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 to 14 of the judgment hereinbelow : “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 is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is 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. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain 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. 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. In the case Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All ER 563, it was said : "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his "lost years", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected "years of survival". You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well-nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money." 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 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 standards. 13. This Court in the case of C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 , in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed (at p. 380): "In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable." 14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said :- "Non-pecuniary loss : the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases." 18. The said judgment was also discussed by the Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, while granting compensation in such a case. It is apt to reproduce para-7 of the judgment hereinbelow : “7. 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 all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 19. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787 also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787 also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 & 9 of the judgment hereinbelow : “8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 9. The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 20. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771 also discussed the entire law and laid down the guidelines how to grant compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 & 18 of the judgment hereinbelow : “16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 , this Court considered large number of precedents and laid down the following propositions: “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, fully 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 he used to earn or could have earned. 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). (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.” 17. …………………………. 18. …………………………. 18. In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, 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 inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.” 21. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning, prospective medical expenses, traveling expenses etc., which is too meager. 22. The claimant was a housewife and was also performing other vocations. By guess work, it can be said that the monthly income of the petitioner would not be less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. The permanent disability has affected at least 30% of her earning capacity. Her age was 31 years at the time of accident and the multiplier to be applied would not have been less than ‘10’. Thus, she is entitled to Rs. 1,000/- x 12 = Rs. 12,000 x 10 = Rs. 1,12,000/- under the head of loss of earning. 23. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering, loss of amenities, inconvenience, mental stress etc.”, which is also too meager, while taking the physical frame of the claimant and other factors in consideration in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to hereinabove. 24. Keeping in view the ratio and guidelines laid down in the judgments of the Apex Court, (supra) read with the facts of this case, I deem it proper to award Rs. 50,000/- under the head “loss of amenities, inconvenience etc.” and Rs. 50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering”. 25. The petitioner has placed on record medical bills and other documents, which do disclose that the petitioner has spent Rs. 1,47,934/- on her treatment, is held entitled to the said amount under the head “medical expenses”. 26. Having glance on the aforesaid discussion, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering”. 25. The petitioner has placed on record medical bills and other documents, which do disclose that the petitioner has spent Rs. 1,47,934/- on her treatment, is held entitled to the said amount under the head “medical expenses”. 26. Having glance on the aforesaid discussion, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,12,000/- under the head “loss of earning; Rs. 50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering”; Rs. 50,000/- under the head “loss of amenities, inconvenience etc.”, and Rs. 1,47,934/- under the head “medical expenses, total amounting to Rs. 3,59,934/- and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 3,59,934/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 27. The enhanced amount be deposited within eight weeks before the Registry of this Court. 28 . The impugned award is modified, as indicated above, and the appeal is disposed of.