JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. By means of this Judgment MAC APP No. 93 of 2008 and CRP No. 10 of 2012 are being disposed of since they arise out of the same accident. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant Shri Chitta Ranjan Paul filed a petition claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 15.10.2000 at about 12 noon. According to claimant, when he was going towards his house from his shop for lunch he was hit by a Maruti car bearing Registration No. TR-01-A/2331. According to the claimant, he suffered serious injuries in the accident and treated at G.B. hospital, Agartala and thereafter, at Nirapatta Nursing Home, Barasat, West Bengal. He had to undergo an operation and incurred a lot of expenses on his treatment. Before the Trial Court, the owner of the vehicle Kanu Das, who is the petitioner in CRP 10 of 2012, did not appear. The insurance company denied the fact that the vehicle was insured with it. The learned Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of the claimant under the following heads:- "Medical expenses - Rs. 75,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 25,000/- Loss of amenities, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of earning capacity etc.- Rs. 1,50,000/-." To say the least, the award is totally unreasonable. The claimant had produced on record a lot of documents, but the Tribunal has not even cared to refer to these documents and the reasoning for awarding the amounts is as follows:- "For such prolong treatment both at G.B. hospital, Agartala and Nirapatta Nursing Home I believe that claimant has at least spent Rs. 75,000/- for the purpose of his treatment and accordingly I award Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy five thousand) in favour of the claimant for his treatment including fooding, lodging and convenience etc. As the claimant sustained injury in a vehicular accident he has certainly suffer bodily pain and for suffering such bodily pain I further award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) as compensation in favour of the claimant." 3. The learned Tribunal also wrongly observed that the claimant had not produced any document in support of his accident and has awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- giving the following reasons:- "Considering all these aspects I further award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) as compensation in favour of the claimant." 3. The learned Tribunal also wrongly observed that the claimant had not produced any document in support of his accident and has awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- giving the following reasons:- "Considering all these aspects I further award a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lac fifty thousand) for his becoming 40% disabled and loss of amenities , loss of enjoyment of life, loss of earning capacity and for deprivation of his body." 4. Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are judicial bodies and they must give reasons before deciding any issue. When evidence has been led by the parties that evidence must be properly discussed and thereafter, the claim petition decided. Reasons are the heart and soul of a judicial order. If an order is devoid of any reasons the appellate court cannot decipher on what basis the award has been passed. 5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paisa. 6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few. 7. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent: "Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards." 8. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: "Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good." 9. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. 10. In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held: "Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given." 11. In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus: "To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment." 12. In Phillips versus Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: "You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure". The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing", should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. 13. Mc Gregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: "The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life." 14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nirmala Devi, : 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held: "The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales." 15. In R.D. Hattangadi versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., : 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the 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. 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. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they shall include: "(i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the 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, un or sit; (iii) damages for 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." 16. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, : (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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. In Sanjay Verma Vs. In Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, : (2014) 3 SCC 210 the Apex Court has granted compensation under the heads of medical expenses, future treatment, pain and suffering, cost of attendance etc. in a case of similar nature. 18. I now proceed to assess the compensation under the different heads. The accident took place on 15.10.2000 and the claimant remained admitted in the hospital till 25.10.2000. Thereafter, he went to West Bengal for treatment along with his wife and friend. There he got admitted at Nirapatta Nursing Home where an operation was conducted on his leg on 30th October, 2000. He remained admitted in the hospital on 10.11.2000. According to the claimant, he had to go to Calcutta as many as 9 times. 19. The claimant remained admitted in hospital at Agartala for 10 days and would have required two attendants to look after him round the clock. In the year 2000, the expense of one attendant at Agartala is assessed Rs. 150/- per day and therefore, the cost of two attendants for 10 days works out to Rs. 3,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant went to Calcutta where he remained admitted for 15 days. The attendants also accompanied him back to and fro from Calcutta and therefore, he is awarded attendant charges for 20 days. In Calcutta, he would have to arrange for boarding and lodging of the attendants also and therefore, the cost of each attendant is taken up Rs. 500/- per day and the cost of two attendants for 20 days works out to Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, the cost of attendants is Rs. 23,000/-. 20. As far as medical expenses are concerned, the documents which are on record show that Rs. 28,760/- was spent on medicines and hospitalization alone. There must have been some other expenses for which vouchers may not have been kept. Therefore, for medical expenses the claimant is awarded Rs. 35,000/-. 21. The claimant has placed on record a number of air tickets on the basis of which he and his attendants travel to Calcutta. The value of these tickets for the period of treatment works out to Rs. 26,930/-. The claimant has also placed some receipts of air tickets of 2006 and 2007 on record, but those are not been taken into consideration because there is no material to show that the claimant underwent any treatment in Calcutta in these years. The value of these tickets for the period of treatment works out to Rs. 26,930/-. The claimant has also placed some receipts of air tickets of 2006 and 2007 on record, but those are not been taken into consideration because there is no material to show that the claimant underwent any treatment in Calcutta in these years. It appears that the claimant trying to take advantage of the claim petition has also claimed expenses for travel totally unrelated to his treatment. In addition to the amount of Rs. 26,930/-, the claimant must have on his various visits in Calcutta spent some amount on taxis and local transport and therefore, he is awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in all for transportation fees. 22. The claimant remained in hospital in all for about one month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, he is awarded Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering. 23. The claimant has suffered 40% disability. He cannot work properly. There is shortening of leg and stiffness in the left hip. Keeping all these facts on consideration he is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for loss of amenities of life, future discomfort etc. 24. The learned Tribunal held that the claimant had failed to prove his income. However, the records show that the claimant had filed his income tax returns. For the assessment year 1998-99 his business profit was Rs. 52,780/-. In the year 1999-2000, it was Rs. 67,118/-. In the year 2000-01, the profit was Rs. 71,360/-. This shows that the income was increasing and the income was at least about Rs. 6,000/- per month. The claimant due to the accident and treatment could not have worked at least for 5 months and therefore, he is awarded Rs. 30,000/- as loss of income. 25. As far as future loss of income is concerned, the claimant runs a hardware shop. No doubt, he has suffered disability, but this disability has not affected his earning capacity to such an extent that he cannot earn any amount. He can still run the shop. The disability of 40% cannot be treated to be the loss of his earning capacity. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that even a shop keeper in a small town has to be physically active and the disability may somehow adversely affect the earning capacity of the claimant. He can still run the shop. The disability of 40% cannot be treated to be the loss of his earning capacity. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that even a shop keeper in a small town has to be physically active and the disability may somehow adversely affect the earning capacity of the claimant. I assess the loss of earning capacity at 15% i.e. Rs. 900/- per month or Rs. 10,800/- per year. The claimant in his claim petition claimed that his age was 40 years, but in his affidavit has stated his age was 50 years. The claimant is clearly not a very honest person. Some of the record produced by him is totally unrelated with the treatment. In his affidavit which was filed in the year 2007, his date of birth is stated to be 3rd March, 1957 and therefore, on the date of accident he was about 43 and 1/2 years old. Therefore, applying multiplier of 15, the compensation works out to Rs. 1,62,000/-. 26. The total compensation works out Rs. 23,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 20,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 1,62,000/- = Rs. 3,55,000/-. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest of this compensation @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till payment of the amount. 27. Now comes the issue as to who shall pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal held that there was no proof of insurance and held the owner liable to pay the entire amount. The owner filed a review petition in the year 2011. It was delayed by 2 years 312 days. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the review petition on the ground of delay. That order has been challenged in CRP 10 of 2012. The explanation given by the owner is that he had informed the insurance company about the accident and therefore, did not feel that it was necessary to appear before the Tribunal. To say the least, this explanation is totally unacceptable. A party cannot decide for himself that he should or should not appear in Court. If he wants that his rights are protected, he must appear before the Court and apprise the Court about the facts. To say the least, this explanation is totally unacceptable. A party cannot decide for himself that he should or should not appear in Court. If he wants that his rights are protected, he must appear before the Court and apprise the Court about the facts. All that was required of the owner was that he should have filed a written statement before the Court and along with the written statement filed a copy of the policy of insurance as well as the driving licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle. The owner along with revision petition has placed on record a letter purportedly sent by him on 30th October, 2000 to the insurance company informing that that his vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-A-2331 has met with an accident. In this letter it is not stated whether there was any damage to the vehicle or whether any injury was caused to any person. The claim petition was filed in the year 2001 and thereafter, notice was issued to the insurance company and the insurance company sent a letter to the owner on 19.11.2007 asking for the following documents:- "1. Photo copy of Registration Book. 2. Photo copy of Road Permit. 3. Photo copy of Tax - Token. 4. Photo copy of Fitness. 5. Photo copy of Driving Licence. 6. Photo copy of Insurance Policy/Certificate. 7. M.V.I. Report of Police report." 28. In this letter there is reference to some letter of the owner dated 21.07.2003. According to the owner, he sent a reply along with all the documents to the insurance company, but no copy of the said letter has been produced. Not only this, the owner was also served in the present appeal which was filed in the year 2008 only. Therefore, he was aware that an award had been passed against him. The owner was represented by a counsel right from November, 2008, but the review petition was filed before the Tribunal only in the year 2011. Therefore, there is unexplained delay in filing the review petition. However, since there is an insurance policy which fact is not denied, I feel that the insurance company should pay the amount, but the burden of paying some portion of the interest should fall on the insurer. The review petition of the owner is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs. However, since there is an insurance policy which fact is not denied, I feel that the insurance company should pay the amount, but the burden of paying some portion of the interest should fall on the insurer. The review petition of the owner is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs. Since the insurance policy was not produced before the Trial Court, the insurance company has been denied the opportunity of taking up other defences such as validity of the driving licence of the driver etc. It must be given an opportunity to properly contest the petition against the owner. 29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal as well as the revision petition are disposed of with the following directions:- "(i) that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty five thousand) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment of the awarded amount; (ii) that the insurance company shall deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty five thousand) along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 07.04.2010 till date of payment or deposit; (iii) the owner shall deposit the interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,55,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 03.04.2001 till 06.04.2010. The owner shall also pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand). (iv) the owner and the insurance company shall appear before the Tribunal on 19th January, 2015 and thereafter, both the owner and the insurance company will be permitted to lead evidence. The insurance company shall be at liberty to raise all objections available to it. The learned Tribunal shall decide whether the liability should be fastened on the insurance company or the owner. (v) In case, the Tribunal after enquiry finds that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, then the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the entire amount paid by it from the owner. The insurance company will not be required to file a separate suit for recovery of this amount, but the same shall be recovered in execution of this order." 30. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The record be sent back so as to reach before the Tribunal before 19th January, 2015. 31. The insurance company will not be required to file a separate suit for recovery of this amount, but the same shall be recovered in execution of this order." 30. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The record be sent back so as to reach before the Tribunal before 19th January, 2015. 31. It is made clear that the claimant need not appear before the Trial Court.