JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The claimant has questioned the award dated 28th February, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Case No. 47 of 2003, tilted Nikku Ram v. Vishal Sharma & others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short, "the impugned award"). 2. The claimant/appellant became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by respondent No. 2, namely, Sarwan Kumar, while driving truck bearing registration No. HP-51-6237, rashly and negligently on 11.1.2003 at about 6.45 p.m. near Behal Kandela, sustained injuries, which resulted in fracture of right femur and jaw and suffered disablement. The claimant has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The insurer, owner and the driver resisted the claim petition on various grounds. 4. The following issues came to be framed in the claim petition:- "1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-51-6237 which was being driven by respondent No.2, if so, its effect" OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom of the respondents? OPP. 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license, if so, its effect? OPR-3 4. Whether the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR 1 and 2. 5. Relief." 5. The claimant himself appeared in the witness box and examined Dhan Dev, Vikram Thakur and Sachin. The respondents have examined Rajinder Singh and driver Sarwan Kumar. 6. Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimant has proved issue No. 1. Neither the insurer nor the owner or driver have questioned the findings returned on issue No. 1, thus, it has attained finality. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 7. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4. 8. The owner, driver and the insurer have also not questioned the findings returned on issues No. 3 and 4, have attained finality so far it relates to them. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 7. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4. 8. The owner, driver and the insurer have also not questioned the findings returned on issues No. 3 and 4, have attained finality so far it relates to them. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are also upheld. 9. Issue No. 2 The only question to be determined is to what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled. The claimant was admitted in the hospital at Bilaspur from 11th January, 2003 to 4th February, 2003, thereafter was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted as indoor patient. Resultantly, he remained absent from duty for 739 days. Thus, there is proof on the file that the claimant has undergone for pain and suffering, was confined to bed and remained absent from duty for 739 days, he was entitled to compensation. 10. The Tribunal has recorded that the claimant has spent Rs. 50,000/- on account of his treatment. It is apt to reproduce para-16 and relevant portion of para-17 of the impugned award herein: 16. The accident and the injuries are admitted. The rash and negligent driving has already been proved as per the conclusion drawn in the preceding issue. Now comes the determination of the compensation to be awarded in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, as per the averments made in the petition was 52 years of age at the relevant time and was serving as Constable in SSB and on the relevant day he was on leave w.e.f. 5.1.2003 to 13.1.2003 and during his leave period he met with an accident. According to the petitioner, his monthly salary was Rs. 10,000/- and after the accident he remained admitted in the Zonal Hospital Bilaspur w.e.f. 11.1.2003 to 4.2.2003 and thereafter, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he remained admitted as indoor patient and had been going to Chandigarh for follow up and as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident he remained absent from duty for 739 days and his salary amounting to Rs. 1,23,179/- was also deducted. According to the petitioner, he has spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment. "17. . 1,23,179/- was also deducted. According to the petitioner, he has spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment. "17. . The petitioner has not examined any doctor to prove it on record that on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he remained admitted in various hospitals and due to the impact of the injuries, he could not join his duty and remained absent for 739 days." 11. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has held that the claimant was a Government employee and was drawing salary of Rs. 7,646/- per month. Guess work was to be made in order to assess the compensation. While exercising guess work in terms of the judgment made by the Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , the claimant is at least entitled to compensation under the head "loss of earnings". Roughly, it can be said and held that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of "loss of salary". The claimant is also entitled to some amount under the heads of "loss of amenities and pain & suffering", which was also not granted by the Tribunal. By way of guess work, the claimant is also held entitled to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- under the said heads. 12. The claimant has also claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under the head of "expenditure on medical treatment". As already held by the Tribunal in para 17 of the impugned award that the claimant has spent Rs. 50,000/- on his treatment, I deem it proper to award Rs. 50,000/- under this head, though too meagre in view of the fact that he has remained in the hospital and confined to bed for pretty long time i.e. 739 days. 13. Now the only question is who should be saddled with the liability? The vehicle was insured and the factum of insurance is not in dispute. Thus, the insurer is saddled with the liability. 14. Having said so, the claimant is entitled to the total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 50000+ Rs. 50000 = Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from today till its realization. 15. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount in the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. 14. Having said so, the claimant is entitled to the total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 50000+ Rs. 50000 = Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from today till its realization. 15. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount in the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. On deposit, the award amount be released in favour of the claimant through payees account cheque. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 17. Send down the record. Order accordingly.