JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 17.7.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Camp at Nalagarh in MAC Petition No. 24-S/2 of 2011 whereby a sum of Rs. 11,66,070/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1 alongwith costs, pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment. 2. That the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the appellant and one Sh.Ram Sawroop on account of grievous injuries alleged to have been suffered by her in an accident which is stated to have been caused by respondent No.2, the driver of bus No. HP-14-5310 owned by the appellant. It was alleged that on 1.5.2011 the claimant had gone to her parental house and she was coming back to her in-laws house in Village Khaddi Kunihar, in bus No. HP-14-5310, owned by the appellant and being driven by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, being driver of the offending bus was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and when it reached Kunni bridge at about 5.00 P.M. he could not control the bus, as a result of which, it had fallen down in the khud causing injuries to all the passengers including the claimant. It was alleged that she had sustained grievous injuries in her back bone, hand leg etc. and she was taken to Community Health Centre, Kunihar, where first aid was given to her and then she was at once referred to IGMC, Shimla for further treatment. It was alleged that she remained admitted in IGMC, Shimla from 2.5.2011 till 9.6.2011 where she was operated upon and striker mono axial screw, striker blocker and solid rod had been affixed in her body through major operation and she had spent Rs.7,00,000/- on her treatment and now she is stated to have suffered permanent disability of 35% qua her whole body. 3. The matter had also been reported to the police and FIR No. 36/11 was registered against the respondent No.2 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 3. The matter had also been reported to the police and FIR No. 36/11 was registered against the respondent No.2 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. It was further alleged by the claimant that due to these grievous injuries and her having suffered permanent disability to the extent of 35% she is not in a position to do her household work and she cannot get up from her bed herself and for every work she requires services of an attendant and prior to the accident she used to earn an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month from stitching work and she also used to earn sufficient money from her agricultural pursuits and now she is not in a position to do her work and in addition to that her husband has employed one permanent attendant for looking after her daily pursuits and an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month is being paid to the said servant Smt. Savitri Devi. The claimant has further averred in her petition that she is now wholly dependent on her family members and prior to this accident she had also opened a beauty parlour and now she is not in a position to run that also and due to all these reasons she filed the petition against the appellant, being owner and respondent No.2, driver of the offending bus and claimed compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. 4. The claim petition filed by the claimant was contested by the appellant and respondent No.2 by filing separate replies. The appellant admitted the accident to have taken place on 1.5.2011 but had averred that the petitioner was not earning anything as pleaded by her as she was only a house wife with no such income. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- spent by the claimant on her treatment was denied. The appellant has taken specific averment in the reply that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been paid as interim relief to the claimant and an amount of Rs.1,32,914/- had been reimbursed to the claimant on account of medical claim and if any compensation is awarded by the Tribunal, then the said amount of Rs.1,42,914/- be adjusted in the said compensation. 5. 5. The respondent No.2 in his reply has averred that the petition is not maintainable in the present form as the accident had not committed by him due to his rash and negligent driving, rather it had taken place due to mechanical defect in the bus. He has also averred that the claimant has no subsisting cause of action against him to file petition for compensation. The income of the claimant to the tune of Rs.15,000/- from her profession and to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- per year from agricultural pursuits was denied as a whole. He has further averred that though the vehicle being driven by him had met with an accident, but this accident had taken place due to mechanical defect which had developed in the vehicle and the case FIR registered against him in Police Station, Arki had to be cancelled because of the accident due to mechanical failure and cancellation report was accepted by the Court of learned JMIC, Arki. He has further pleaded in the reply that when the bus reached near Kunni bridge he was driving the vehicle in a slow speed, but due to sudden breakage of front right main and second Patta (leave spring) of the side of the driver, the bus had fallen down in the khud and due to his best efforts he could not save the lives of the passengers and the vehicle. He has further averred that due to this breakage of the left spring was the accident inevitable and was thus beyond his control and denied the case of the claimant as a whole. 6. The claimant filed rejoinder in which all the allegations levelled by the appellant and respondent No.2 were denied and those averred in the petition were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal on 26.7.2012 framed the following issues. 1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in question by respondent No.2 and the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident? OPP 2. If issue No.1, is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 5. Relief. 7. OPP 2. If issue No.1, is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 5. Relief. 7. The learned Tribunal below after recording and evaluating the evidence passed the award for grant of compensation in favour of the claimant as mentioned in detail supra. 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Tribunal below, the owner/appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court inter alia on the ground that the award passed by the learned Tribunal below is wrong, illegal and is not in consonance with the evidence led in the present case. It is stated that there is contradictions in the statement of the claimant and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination for income could be calculated at Rs.12,000/- per month but has further been stated that the learned Tribunal below has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1,35,870/- on account of medical treatment expenses because it was the claimant, who had already paid by the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,32,914/- towards this very treatment based upon the original bills Ex. R-1 to R-98. It may be observed here that the driver of the offending vehicle has not questioned the findings regarding his rashness and negligence established before the Tribunal by filing an appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully. 10. At the outset, it may be observed that India loses more than $20 billion due to road accidents annually which is enough to feed 50% of the nation’s malnourished children. More disturbingly, a large number of deaths from road accidents are borne by “vulnerable road users” such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. The burgeoning middle class, access to easier credits and an array of vehicles to choose from have all led to overcrowding of roads and its consequent chaos. Driver’s fault accounted for a whopping 77.5% of the total road accidents while pedestrian and cyclist’s fault accounted for a mere 3.7%. The burgeoning middle class, access to easier credits and an array of vehicles to choose from have all led to overcrowding of roads and its consequent chaos. Driver’s fault accounted for a whopping 77.5% of the total road accidents while pedestrian and cyclist’s fault accounted for a mere 3.7%. Among the states, Maharashtra topped the list with the highest number of road accidents at 68.438 followed by Tamil Nadu (65.873), Madhya Pradesh (49,406), Karnataka (44,731) and Andhra Pradesh (44,165), Mumbai topped the list of cities with 25,471 road accidents, Delhi came second with 7281 road accidents followed by Bangalore (6031), Indore (4995) and Bhopal (3459). 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Satya Prakash vs. State (Crl. Revision Petition No. 338 of 2009) decided on 11th October, 2013, observed as under: “1. Road accidents are a human tragedy, which involves a high degree of human suffering. The ramification of road accidents can be colossal and their negative impact is felt not only on individuals, their health and family welfare, but also on the economy of the country. They impose a huge socio-economic cost in terms of untimely deaths, injuries and loss of potential income. The World Health Organisation Global Status Report on Road Accidents, 2013 (in short WHO Report of 2013) estimates GDP loss due to road traffic accidents in our country to be 3 per cent which is higher than emerging and emerged economies like Russia (1.9), Mexico (1.7), Malaysia (1.6), Brazil (1.2), Turkey (1.1), Korea (1.1), New Zealand (0.02), United Kingdom (1.2), and United States (2.3). 2. Our country has the dubious distinction of having the highest number of road accidents. According to the latest report of Road Transport Ministry, 4,90,383 road accidents were reported in 2012 resulting in 1,38,258 deaths i.e. an average of one road accident every minute resulting in one death every 3.8 minutes which is highest in the world. According to the WHO Report of 2013, India counts for about 10 per cent of road crash fatalities, meaning thereby that more people die in road accidents in India than in any other country. The WHO Report of 2013 estimates road traffic death rate per 100,000 in India to be 18.9 as compared to 16.8 in the 2009 report. According to the WHO Report of 2013, India counts for about 10 per cent of road crash fatalities, meaning thereby that more people die in road accidents in India than in any other country. The WHO Report of 2013 estimates road traffic death rate per 100,000 in India to be 18.9 as compared to 16.8 in the 2009 report. This rate is much higher than that of middle income countries such as Indonesia (17.7), Nepal (16), Burma (15), Sri Lanka (13.7), Bhutan (13.2) and Bangladesh (11.6). Approximately half of the victims of road accidents in India are vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and passengers in buses & trucks). The WHO Report further suggests that pedestrians account for 8.7 per cent of road deaths in India. According to the data released by National Crime Records Bureau, deaths by motor accidents account for 35.2 per cent of the total deaths in accidents in year 2012. 3. Human life is precious. The road users have a fundamental right to life and liberty which includes the right to safety and immediate payment of compensation in the event of unavoidable accidents. It is the duty of the State to ensure safety on roads and to ensure due process of law for expeditious payment of compensation in the event of injury or death of the road users arising out of the use of motor vehicles on the roads. 4. In Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 719 , Krishna Iyer J., made the following observation with respect to the chaotic conditions prevailing on Indian roads:- “1...More people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country.... xxx xxx xxx 2...Parking of heavy vehicles on the wrong side, hurrying past traffic signals on the sly, neglecting to keep to the left of the road, driving vehicles criss-cross, riding scooters without helmets and with whole families on pillions, thoughtless cycling and pedestrian jay walking with lawless ease, suffocating jam-packing of stage carriages and hell-driving of mini-buses, overloading of trucks with perilous projections and, above all, policemen, if any, proving by helpless presence that law is dead in this milieu charged with melee - such is the daily, hourly scene of summons by Death to innocent persons who take to the roads, believing in the bona fides of the traffic laws... 5. 5. The precious lives of innocent persons are snatched away by the reckless acts of the drivers in motor accidents, and the victims or the kith and kin of the deceased persons are forced to face the brink of darkness of life. The harrowing tales of the hapless victims in the motor accidents speak volumes of heart-rending sufferings and pessimism in their lives. Serious injuries often cause life-long disability for the victims which fundamentally affect quality of their life and that of their families. 6. The problem is more acute for the poor victims of road accidents as the death of the sole bread earner of the family leaving behind old and infirm parents, a helpless wife and minor children leads them to starvation. Similarly, permanent disability or an incurable injury to the sole bread earner leads the entire family of poor persons to an equally anomalous situation. The poor person injured in the accident does not have the funds for treatment and his sufferings are multiplied for want of treatment. 7. Injuries, fatalities and disabilities caused by motor accidents are also a major public health issue. An advance and effective post-accident care can reduce mortality after accidents. Unfortunately, the victims in most road accidents are left unattended, even though hospitals may be nearby or they are provided medical assistance with delay. One of the major reasons may be that the by-passers and other people present on the site of any accident avoid getting involved in long and tedious legal affairs. 8. Majority of road crashes involve human error. Careless driving puts the lives of others at risk. The driver not in full control of the vehicle becomes, all too often, a lethal weapon. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Therefore, those who fail to demonstrate responsibility forfeit their right to freedom. A rash, negligent, irresponsible or illegal driver has no business to be on the road. A greater level of scrutiny and accountability is required when life is lost or serious injury inflicted.” 12. In Ibrahim vs. Raju and others (2011) 10 SCC 634 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The sufferings of the dependents of those who are killed in motor accidents and the survivors who are disabled are manifold. In Ibrahim vs. Raju and others (2011) 10 SCC 634 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The sufferings of the dependents of those who are killed in motor accidents and the survivors who are disabled are manifold. Some time these can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is disabled as a result of road accident, the cost of treatment, care and rehabilitation is likely to be very high. A very large number of people involved in motor accidents are pedestrians, children and women and, on account of sheer ignorance, poverty and other disabilities, majority of them are unable to engage competent lawyers for putting their cause before the Tribunals and the Courts. The insurance companies, with whom the vehicles involved in accidents are insured always have the advantage of assistance of legally trained mind (law officers and panel lawyers). They contest the claim petitions by raising all possible technical objections for ensuring that their clients are either completely absolved or their liability is minimized and in the process, adjudication of the claims filed by the victims and/or their legal representatives is delayed for years together. At times, the delay in disposal of the claim cases and litigation expenses make the award of compensation meaningless for survivors of the accidents and/or families of the victims.” 13. Taking into consideration the enormity of the problem regarding road accidents , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued detailed guidelines and directions vide its judgment in S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012 on 22.4.2014. It may be observed here that in so far as this Court is concerned, directions to the State have already been issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Suraksha Foundation vs. Union of India, CWP No. 2929 of 2008 to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.4.2014. 14. It may be observed here that in so far as this Court is concerned, directions to the State have already been issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Suraksha Foundation vs. Union of India, CWP No. 2929 of 2008 to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.4.2014. 14. In an Article “Road to hell – every 3.7 minutes, death swoops in”, the Author Rajiv Theodore, has aptly described the condition of the India’s roads in these terms “driving on India’s roads could be as dangerous to life as negotiating through the mine-laden streets of Baghdad or meandering through the jihadist infested rabbit warrens of Kabul or Karachi.” Therefore, in this scenario it becomes all the more necessary that due care and caution is not only observed but maintained while driving the vehicles. The vehicles have to be driven with care and caution and cannot be permitted to be driven either recklessly, negligently, rashly and due regard and respect has to be given to the other road users including the pedestrians. 15. Now coming to the facts of the present case the accident in question has not been denied. It is further not denied that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident and due to the injuries sustained by her, she has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 35% so much so that she is not even in a position to get up from the bed independently. It has come on record that the claimant earlier was helping her family members in cultivating the agricultural land and now after the accident, she cannot even take care of herself what to talk of her looking after the agricultural land. Because of the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries on her spine, and her one hand and one leg has been rendered useless. Not only this, she has been rendered totally incapable of rendering even small chores of the household. She cannot look after herself and children and for this purpose, the couple had to engage one Savitri Devi, who was being paid a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimant has also stated to have done a course of beautician and because of this accident; the claimant would not be in a position to work as a beautician. 16. She cannot look after herself and children and for this purpose, the couple had to engage one Savitri Devi, who was being paid a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The claimant has also stated to have done a course of beautician and because of this accident; the claimant would not be in a position to work as a beautician. 16. The disability certificate shows that the claimant has been certified to be permanently disabled to the extent of 35% of the whole body which has further been classified to be a permanent loss of function. The claimant has sustained injury in a spinal cord which has been classified as unstable L1 without defect, while left hand has received crush injuries resulting in a life long stiffness with pain. The claimant will carry a stiff back with a permanent pain in the lower back throughout her life.. 17. The claimant has produced on record Ex.P-24, a certificate of proficiency awarded to her for having attended a full time course of practical and theoretical training in ‘Glamours World Beauty Parlour’. It has also come in the evidence of the claimant that she was stitching clothes prior to the accident and had also opened a Beauty Parlour, out of which she is alleged to be earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. Further her case is that she was helping her family members in the agriculture pursuits and in this manner, was earning an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. To prove this fact, the claimant has placed on record the copy of jamabandi Ex. P-22 which shows that the family of the claimant had sufficient land holdings. 18. Apart from the work of tailoring and attending Beauty Parlour, it cannot be denied that the claimant was also a wife and the contribution made by her to the house was invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agarwal & Anr. V. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2010, SC 3426 as under: “The contribution made by the wife to the house is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. The gratuitous services rendered by wife with true love and affection to the children and her husband and managing the household affairs cannot be equated with the services rendered by others. A wife/mother does not work by the clock. She is in the constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night unless she is employed. She takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking of food, washing of clothes etc. she teaches small children and provides invaluable guidance to them for their future life. A housekeeper or maid-servant can do the household work, such as cooking food, washing clothes and utensils, keeping the house clean etc., but she can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders selfless service to her husband and children. It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children.” 19. The income of the person, who is self employed or is working on fixed wages cannot be taken to be static throughout life and would have to be taken to have reasonably increased with the passage of time. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (2012) 6 SCC 421 as under: “14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naïve to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. 15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. 16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. 17. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. 18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case in fact calculated the income based on the contribution of the housewife on account of gratuitous services alone to be Rs.5,000/-. I am making a reference to the judgment particularly for the purpose that even if in this case the claimant is considered to be a house wife even then her income on account of gratuitous service coupled with her other income when clubbed would work out to atleast Rs.12,000/- and it would not be unreasonable to assume that the loss suffered by her was atleast Rs.4,200/- per month as has been computed by the learned Tribunal below. 21. In so far as the grant of compensation in personal injury cases is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Ravindranath alias R. Chowdary vs. E. Srinivas and another (2013) 12 SCC 455 has held as under: “12. It is settled law that compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads: Pecuniary damages (special damages) 12.1. (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. 12.2. (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. 12.3. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (general damages) 12.4.(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 12.5.(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). 12.6.(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 12.7. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under Heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 12.8. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (general damages) 12.4.(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 12.5.(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). 12.6.(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 12.7. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under Heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 12.8. 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.” 22. The Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the claimant is a young lady and at the time of accident was about 26 years old. While awarding compensation especially for non-pecuniary loss, the Tribunals have to keep in mind several factors like pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, special circumstances of the claimant like age, unusual deprivation suffered, effect thereof on his/her future life. It is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Loss of amenities of life includes loss of expectation of life. Similarly the loss of expectation of life is concerned with the earning capacity. In R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (1995) 1 SCC 551 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practicing 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 lifelong 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.” 23. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others (2013) 8 SCC 389 summed up the legal position regarding award of compensation in injury cases as under: “28. This Court is required to keep in mind justice, equity and good conscience which must be the primary, relevant and important aspects for awarding just and reasonable compensation to an unfortunate victim, the appellant herein who has sustained grievous injuries to her body and whose future prospects are completely doomed. Further, the Tribunal and courts while awarding compensation for bodily injuries, must realise that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and that all other possessions and ownership are the extensions of the basic right. Bodily injuries should be equated with the deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages and the amount of damages varies in accordance with the gravity of injuries. 29. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to certain paragraphs which have been referred to by the Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy vs. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr.[ ILR 2004 Karnataka 2471], wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has considered the relevant important aspects from the judgment of this Court and the House of Lords and different learned scholars and authors of books on awarding pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The abovementioned decision states about the approach of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals and Courts for awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimants in relation to the bodily injuries suffered by them. It is worthwhile to extract Paragraph 16 from K. Narasimha Murthy case (supra), which reads as under: “16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries.” 30. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Ors.[ 1995 (1) SCC 551 ], speaking about the heads of compensation, this Court has held thus: "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 profit upto 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." 31. Further, on this point, Justice Viscount Dunedin in Admiralty Comrs v. S.S. Valeria [(1922)2 A.C. 242 at p. 248], has observed thus: "The true method of expression, I think, is that in calculating damages you are to consider what is the pecuniary consideration which will make good to the sufferer, as far as money can do so, the loss which he has suffered as the natural result of the wrong done to him". 32. Further, Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Company [1880 5 App. Cas. 32. Further, Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Company [1880 5 App. Cas. 25 at p. 39], has held as under: "Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given. . . . you should as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put the person who has been injured. . . . in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong." 33. Lord Morris in his memorable speech in H. West and Sons, pointed out this aspect in the following words: "Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But, the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the 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. Further, more it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparative injuries should be compensated by comparable awards." 34. In Ward v. James[1966 1 Q.B. 273 at pp. 299-300], speaking for the Court of Appeal in England, Lord Denning laid down three basic principles while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury: "….Firstly, assessability: 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.” “24.In deciding on the quantum of damages to be paid to a person for the personal injury suffered by him, the Court is bound to ascertain all considerations which will make good to the sufferer of the injuries, as far as money can do, the loss which he has suffered as. a natural consequence of the wrong done to him.” 35. Further, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Basavaraj v. Shekar[ILR 1987 Kar. 1399], has held as under: "8..…If the original position cannot be restored - as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be - the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so 'make good' the damage.” “26.Therefore, the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the Court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. But, it is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human frame.” 36. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Parry v. Cleaver[[1970] 1 AC 1 at p. 22], has said: "…..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". 37. The necessity that the damages should be full and adequate was stressed by the Court of Queen's Bench in Fair v. London and North Western Railway Company[21 L.T. (N.S.) 326 (1869)]. . . no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment". 37. The necessity that the damages should be full and adequate was stressed by the Court of Queen's Bench in Fair v. London and North Western Railway Company[21 L.T. (N.S.) 326 (1869)]. In Rushton v. National Coal Board[1953 1 QB 495 at p. 499], Singleton L.J. has said that: “When damages have to be assessed in a case of this kind there are many elements for consideration: the pain and suffering undergone and that which may occur in the future; the loss of some of the amenities of life; the fact that a man with an injury of this kind will always require some measure of help, even though he may be able to earn considerable money. These are some of the matters which have to be taken into consideration, and another is the fact that his earnings will probably be less than they were before.” 38. In Fowler v. Grace [(1970) 114 Sol. Jo.193], Edmund Davies, L.J., has said that : “It is the manifest duty of the Tribunal to give as perfect a sum as was within its power'. There are many losses which cannot easily be expressed in terms of money. If a person, in an accident, loses his sight, hearing or smelling faculty or a limb, value of such deprivation cannot be assessed in terms of market value because there is no market value for the personal asset which has been lost in the accident, and there is no easy way of expressing its equivalent in terms of money. Nevertheless a valuation in terms of money must be made, because, otherwise, the law would be sterile and not able to give any remedy at all. Although accuracy and certainty were frequently unobtainable, a fair assessment must be made. Although undoubtedly there are difficulties and uncertainties in assessing damages in personal injury cases, that fact should not preclude an assessment as best as can, in the circumstances be made.” 39. In Mediana, [1900] AC 113 at p. 116], the plaintiffs were deprived of the use of their own lightship, but sustained no pecuniary loss as another lightship was kept in reserve. In Mediana, [1900] AC 113 at p. 116], the plaintiffs were deprived of the use of their own lightship, but sustained no pecuniary loss as another lightship was kept in reserve. Yet, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to substantial damages for the loss of the use of their ship for a period, and Lord Halsbury L.C. answered the objection that assessment was too uncertain by observing that: "….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 recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given.” “32.In personal injury cases, the Court is constantly required to form an estimate of chances and risks which cannot be determined with precision. It is because, the law will disregard possibilities which are slight or chances which are nebulous; otherwise, all the circumstances of the situation must be taken into account, whether they relate to the future which the plaintiff would have enjoyed if the accident had not happened, or to the future of his injuries and his earning power after the accident. Damages are compensation for an injury or loss, that is to say, the full equivalent of money so far as the nature of money admits; and difficulty or uncertainty does not prevent an assessment.” 40. It is well-settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. In personal injury cases the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. In personal injury cases the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. Chief Justice Cockburn in Fair's case, supra, distinguished the above two aspects thus: "In assessing the compensation the jury should take into account two things, first, the pecuniary loss the plaintiff sustains by the accident : secondly, the injury he sustains in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life. When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss they have to take into account not only his present loss, but his incapacity to earn a future improved income". 41. McGregor on Damages (14th Edition) at paragraph no. 1157, referring to the heads of damages in personal injury actions, states as under: "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". Besides, the Court is well-advised to remember that the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be such as to enable even a tort feasor 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', is quite apposite to be kept in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal injury cases.” 42. In R. Venkatesh v. P. Saravanan & Ors.[ 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 411], the High Court of Karnataka while dealing with a personal injury case wherein the claimant sustained certain crushing injuries due to which his left lower limb was amputated, held that in terms of functional disability, the disability sustained by the claimant is total and 100% though only the claimant's left lower limb was amputated. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Court held as under: "9. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Court held as under: "9. As a result of the amputation, the claimant had been rendered a cripple. He requires the help of crutches even for walking. He has become unfit for any kind of manual work. As he was earlier a loader doing manual work, the amputation of his left leg below knee, has rendered him unfit for any kind of manual work. He has no education. In such cases, it is well-settled that the economic and functional disability will have to be treated as total, even though the physical disability is not 100 per cent". 43. Lord Reid in Baker v. Willoughby[(1969) 3 All ER 1528 at p. 1532], has said: "…..A man is not compensated for the physical injury; he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury. His loss is not in having a stiff leg; it is in his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those amenities which depend on freedom of movement and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned…. ." 24. Taking into consideration the aforesaid parameters, it cannot be denied that the Court is bound to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant since the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability to the extent of 35% qua whole body which disability is permanent in nature. The claimant is unable to lead a full life and enjoy the amenities of life like a normal human being. Though the original position of the claimant cannot be restored, however, an endeavour is to give fair equivalent in money, so as to make good the damage, can always be awarded by the Court keeping in view the general principle of assessment of damage with regard to personal injury cases. Though, it may be emphasized that this Court is not unmindful or oblivious of the fact that no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man/woman and renew a shattered and battered human frame. 25. That the learned Tribunal below has awarded the compensation in the following manner: “i) Compensation for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- Trauma in lumpsum ii) Loss of amenities and expectation of life due to the Rs.50,000/- petitioner being confined to bed. iii) Compensation for loss of income as observed Rs.8,56,800/- hereinabove. 25. That the learned Tribunal below has awarded the compensation in the following manner: “i) Compensation for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- Trauma in lumpsum ii) Loss of amenities and expectation of life due to the Rs.50,000/- petitioner being confined to bed. iii) Compensation for loss of income as observed Rs.8,56,800/- hereinabove. iv) Compensation on account of medical treatment Rs.1,35,870/- expenses as per Ex.P8 to Ex.P21 and Ex.R-1 to Ex. R-98. v) Compensation on account of being indoor patient Rs. 76,000/- for 38 days in IGMC, Shimla, including attendant charges at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per day. vi) The petitioner had to be taken to IGMC, Shimla and Rs. 7,400/- had to be brought and subsequently for follow up action she was required to be taken for periodical checkup and to that effect the transportation charges are also to be paid to the petitioner which are worked out as per taxi receipts Ex.P-30 to Ex.P-34, to the tune of Rs. 7400/-. Total Rs. 11,76,070/-.” It would be seen that going by the recent trend of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the compensation under heads (i) and (ii) is grossly inadequate. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the loss of income was calculated marginally on the higher side as has been canvassed by the appellant, even then, it would have no effect on the final award passed by the learned Tribunal because of the inadequacy of the amount awarded under heads (i) and (ii) supra. 26. It was then strenuously argued by Mr. G.S.Rathour, learned counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs.1,32,914/- has already been paid to the claimant on behalf of the appellant. I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant had summoned Clerk from H.R.T.C. to prove that an amount of Rs.1,32,914/- had been paid to the claimant by the appellant. However, the said witness in his first line of cross-examination has admitted that he has no such document whereby he can prove that the amount towards medical treatment of the claimant has been paid by the appellant. In view of this clear cut statement and admission of RW-2, who is not only a witness of the appellant but is also his employee, therefore, this submission of the appellant merits rejection and is accordingly rejected. 27. No other point urged. 28. In view of this clear cut statement and admission of RW-2, who is not only a witness of the appellant but is also his employee, therefore, this submission of the appellant merits rejection and is accordingly rejected. 27. No other point urged. 28. In view of the discussion above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.