JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The appellant-claimant has questioned the award, dated 30th June, 2006, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Petition No. 12-S/2 of 2005, titled as Shri Pramod Kumar versus Himachal Roadways Transport Corporation & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,21,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, for short, =the impugned award'. Brief Facts: 2. The claimant has invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ?the Act?, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became victim of the vehicular accident on 27th September, 2002, which was caused by driver, namely, Suresh Chand, while driving offending vehicle-bus bearing registration No. HP-24-4665, rashly and negligently; was traveling in the said vehicle; sustained injuries and became permanently disabled. 3. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their objections. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 28.03.2006: ?1. Whether the accident and consequent simple and grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner on 27.09.2002 were attributed to rash and negligent driving of offending HRTC bus bearing No. HP-24-4667 by respondent No. 2, as alleged, if so its effect? ..OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? ..OPP 3. Relief.? 4. The claimant examined Dr. Ashish Sharma, (PW-1), Shri Rajesh Gautam (PW-3) and Shri Ramesh Chand Thakur (PW-4). Claimant Pramod Kumar also appeared in the witness box as PW-2. Respondents examined Shri Gian Chand (DW-2). Driver Suresh Chand also appeared in the witness box as DW-1. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant has proved both the issues and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,21,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization to the claimant and respondent No. 1-Himachal Roadways Transport Corporation was asked to satisfy the same. 6. The insured-owner and the driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 7. 6. The insured-owner and the driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 7. The claimant has questioned the impugned award, by the medium of this appeal, in hand, on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 8. The findings returned on issue No. 1 is not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue are upheld. 9. The claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability, which has affected his earning capacity, career, charm of life and other amenities of life. He was player of =kho-kho' game and has earned so many certificates, which have been placed on record from pages 55 to 57 of the claim petition. 10. PW-1, Dr. Ashish Sharma has deposed that the disability suffered by the claimant has affected his earning capacity and is not in a position to play =Kho-Kho' game. It is apt to reproduce the statement of the aforesaid doctor herein: ?Stated that I am posted as Medical Officer, Z.H. Solan since August, 2004. On 19.11.2005, I examined Parmod Kumar son of Shri Shiv Ram petitioner present in the court today regarding disability being members of the Medical Board and disability certificate Ext. P1 is issued by the Board which is signed by me as member of board as an expert. The disability was 25% with respect to right lower limb which is permanent in nature. It is correct that petitioner cannot do heavy work involving long walking on hilly terrain. The petitioner cannot do sport activities involving running and this permanent disability has also affected the career of the petitioner regarding his recruitment in armed forces. xxxxx by Sh. Uday Bhanu, Adv xxxxx This permanent disability is not qua the whole body of the petitioner. It is correct that it will go down if it is assessed qua whole body.? 11. It is also profitable to reproduce the statement of PW- 3 Shri Rajesh Gautam in cross-examination herein: ?I was standing in the middle of the bus HRTC on the date of accident. It is incorrect that petitioner was standing on the stairs of the rear door of the bus. It is also incorrect that there is blind curve at the spot of accident. It is incorrect that petitioner was standing on the stairs of the rear door of the bus. It is also incorrect that there is blind curve at the spot of accident. It is also incorrect that the bus driver while giving pass to the truck took his bus towards hill side and the petitioner himself struck against the hill and accident took place. It is also incorrect that now a days the father of the petitioner is looking after the agriculture work of his land. It is also incorrect that I was traveling in HRTC bus on the date of accident. It is also incorrect that I being intimate with the petitioner came to depose in the court in his favour on twisted facts.? 12. While going through the pleadings and the evidence available on the record, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claimant has undergone pain and sufferings; has to undergo it for ever; his physical frame has been shattered; is not in a position to do any sport activity including playing ?kho-kho? game; has lost charm of his life and is deprived of amenities of life. 13. The Tribunal, while considering a case for grant of compensation, in the injury case, has to do some guess work. 14. 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. 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 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? 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. 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. 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." 15. 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." 15. 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 a similar 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.? 16. 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. 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.? 17. 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 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. 17. …………………………. 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.? 18. I have also laid down the same principle, while dealing with a case of similar nature being FAO No. 64 of 2007, titled as Raksha Devi versus United India Insurance Company Limited & others, decided on 5th September, 2014. 19. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the judgments, supra, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding compensation under the heads =pain and sufferings', =loss of amenities' and =loss of income'. 20. The amount awarded under the heads =medical expenses' and =attendant charges' is maintained. 21. While making guess work, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant under the head =pain and sufferings' and Rs.50,000/- under the head =loss of amenities of life'. 22. By guess work, it can be held that at least the claimant has lost Rs.2,000/-per month from the sport activities, which he stands deprived of. His age was 23 years at the time of accident and the multiplier to be applied would not have been less than =15'. Thus, he is entitled to Rs.2,000/- x 12= Rs.24,000/- x 15 = Rs.3,60,000/- under the under =loss of income'. 23. Having said so, the claimant is entitled to compensation as follows:- (i) Expenditure on medical treatment. Rs. 9,100/- (ii) Expenditure on attendant. Rs. 2,000/- (iii) Pain and suffering. Rs. 1,00,000/- (iv) Loss of amenities of life. Rs. 50,000/- (v) Loss of income. Rs. 3,60,000/- Total Rs. 5,21,100/- Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. Having said so, the claimant is entitled to compensation as follows:- (i) Expenditure on medical treatment. Rs. 9,100/- (ii) Expenditure on attendant. Rs. 2,000/- (iii) Pain and suffering. Rs. 1,00,000/- (iv) Loss of amenities of life. Rs. 50,000/- (v) Loss of income. Rs. 3,60,000/- Total Rs. 5,21,100/- Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,21,100/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 24. The compensation amount is enhanced and the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. 25. Respondent No. 1-Himachal Roadways Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks before the Registry of this Court. On deposit, the award amount be released in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 26. The appeal is disposed of. 27. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.