JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- The appeal and the cross objection are being decided by a common judgment since they both arise out of one award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 160 of 2004 decided on 18.01.2007, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,34,784/- in favour of the claimant and held the appellant and owner of the auto rickshaw Sri Dilip Bhowmik liable to pay the compensation in equal shares. The only issue involved in this appeal and cross objection is whether the amount of compensation awarded is just and reasonable. 2. Sri A. Lodh, on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant since the accident took place while the driver was trying to save a child. He also submits that the compensation awarded is highly excessive. On the other hand Sri S. Deb, learned counsel for the claimant, submits that compensation awarded is on the lower side since no amount has been awarded for the future loss of income of the claimant. 3. At the outset, I may observe that compensation can be granted both for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. Pecuniary losses include expenses on medical treatment, transportation, special diet, actual loss of income and the loss which may result in the future whereas non-pecuniary losses include losses for pain and suffering, compensation for future discomfort in life. 4. In the present case the claimant admittedly met with the accident on 27.06.2004, and thereafter was hospitalized and remained in hospital upto 30.06.2004. He has been awarded Rs. 10,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, Rs. 500/- as transportation expenses, Rs. 12,000/- as attendant charges and Rs. 2,00,000/- as lumpsum amount of compensation. He has also been awarded Rs. 6,000/- as future loss of income by taking his income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and loss for two months but had not been awarded any amount whatsoever for future loss of income. 5. How the learned Tribunal has assessed the lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and under what head, is beyond comprehension. I fail to understand how the Tribunal could have awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as lumpsum amount of compensation that too under the head of medical expenses. 5. How the learned Tribunal has assessed the lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and under what head, is beyond comprehension. I fail to understand how the Tribunal could have awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as lumpsum amount of compensation that too under the head of medical expenses. The award, to say the least, shows total lack of knowledge of the principles related to award of compensation. Therefore, I proceed to award the compensation separately under each head,- 1. Pecuniary Losses:-- (i) Medical expense:--The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 6,284/- on the ground that receipts of Rs. 6,283.53 were produced. In accident cases many times, the claimant may not be able to retain the receipts of each and every expense and there may be other expenses which may have been paid for which no receipts may have been kept. Similarly there are some expenses, such as expenses on special diet etc., for which no receipts will be maintained. Keeping in view the fact that the claimant remained admitted in hospital for a little more than a month and receipts of Rs. 6,300/- approximately have been produced. I feel that in the facts of the present case a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at least should be awarded under the head of medical expenses. (ii) Attendant charges:--The learned Tribunal has assessed the attendant charges at Rs. 400/- per day and has awarded Rs. 12,000/-, which in my opinion is reasonable and calls for no enhancement. However, the amount of Rs. 500/- for transportation charges is very much of the lower side because transportation will be required not only to bring the patient to the hospital but also to take the patient back home when treatment is complete. Therefore, I proceed to award Rs. 1,000/- under the head of transportation charges. (iii) Actual loss of income:--The learned Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. Sri S. Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was running a fair price shop, and therefore, his claim that his income was Rs. 5,000/- per month is not at all excessive. I am also of the view that even when a labourer earns Rs. 100/- per day, a person who runs a fair price shop would earn at least Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per day, and therefore, the income should have been assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. 5,000/- per month is not at all excessive. I am also of the view that even when a labourer earns Rs. 100/- per day, a person who runs a fair price shop would earn at least Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- per day, and therefore, the income should have been assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Having held so the actual loss of income works out to Rs. 10,000/- and is awarded, accordingly. (iv) Future loss of income:--There is no evidence worth the name to show what is the future loss of income of the deceased. The disability of a person does not necessarily translate to an exactly similar amount of loss of earning capacity. In the case of a labourer even a disability of 30% to 40% may lead to total loss of income. On the other hand in the case of a clerical worker, teacher, advocate, etc. physical disability may not cause any loss of income. It is for the claimant to prove what was the loss of income sustained by him. If he was running a fair price shop he could have continued running the fair price shop and the disability suffered by him is not of such an extent that he cannot run the fair price shop at all. A disability certificate has been placed on record and it shows that he had suffered a fracture of the tibia and the disability is 40%. In the medical certificate it is not clearly stated whether the physical disability has been assessed in relation to the entire body or in relation to a particular limb. I have been repeatedly asking the Board to specifically state whether the disability has been assessed in relation to a particular limb or in relation to the entire body. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which applies to workmen, even the amputation of a leg below the knee may lead to a loss of earning capacity of only 50%. In the present case there is no amputation, whatsoever, and therefore, I am inclined to hold that the disability is assessed in relation to the limb and not in relation to the entire body. Even from the photograph placed on record with the medical certificate, it is obvious that the claimant can move around though with the help of crutches. Unfortunately the claimant led no evidence whatsoever, to show what was his loss of income. Even from the photograph placed on record with the medical certificate, it is obvious that the claimant can move around though with the help of crutches. Unfortunately the claimant led no evidence whatsoever, to show what was his loss of income. He only made a bald statement that he was not earning. There is nothing on record to show that his fair price shop has been shut down or that his license to run the fair price shop has been withdrawn. I may have been inclined to remand the case but since the accident happened more than ten years back, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to assess the loss of earning capacity on my own assessment. The claimant can run the fair price shop but cannot run it as efficiently as he could when he was completely fit. He may require some help to load and unload food grains. He may also be unable to move around with as much agility as he could before the accident. Keeping all these factors into consideration, I am inclined to assess the loss of earning capacity at 10% which comes to Rs. 500/- per month or Rs. 6,000/- per year and the appropriate multiplier would be 16' and the future loss of earning capacity is assessed at Rs. 96,000/-. 2. Coming to the assessment of damages under the head of non-pecuniary losses, the award of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering is very low. The claimant remained in hospital for more than a month. He suffered a serious fracture, and therefore, he is awarded Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering. The claimant is also entitled to compensation for future discomfort in life. The claimant who was a able bodied young man aged about 33 years cannot move around like a normal person. He cannot walk like a normal person. He cannot enjoy the pleasures of life like any normal person. He is disfigured and maimed for life. Therefore, I am of the opinion that he is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as damages for pain and suffering. The total amount of compensation therefore, works out to Rs. 1,99,000/- which is rounded off to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. The appeal is consequently allowed. The award is reduced from Rs. 2,34,784/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and the cross objection is rejected. Therefore, I am of the opinion that he is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as damages for pain and suffering. The total amount of compensation therefore, works out to Rs. 1,99,000/- which is rounded off to Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. The appeal is consequently allowed. The award is reduced from Rs. 2,34,784/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- and the cross objection is rejected. The claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the same. Send back the LCRs forthwith.