JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) These three appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which caused on 21st October, 2004, at Pattikalyana, District Panipat, Haryana at Ambala-Delhi Highway, by the driver-Uttam Chand, while driving bus bearing registration No. HP-22-2394, rashly and negligently, in which Hem Lata (appellant in FAO No. 533 of 2007) and Kulbhushan Khanna (appellant in FAO No. 538 of 2008) sustained injuries and sought compensation by the medium of claim petitions, being MAC Petition No. 48 of 2005, titled as Hem Lata versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others and MAC Petition No. 40 of 2005 RBT 14 of 2005, titled as Kulbhushan Khanna versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, which were determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal-I”) and the Presiding Officer/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Fast Tract Court, Hamirpur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal-II”) on 17th September, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-I) and 31st July, 2008, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award- I I”). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed FAO No. 533 of 2007 and 538 of 2008 on the ground of adequacy of compensation. The driver, the owner and other affected parties, i.e. the respondents, have not questioned the impugned awards. Thus, the only question to be determined in these two appeals is about the adequacy of the compensation. 3. In FAO No. 26 of 2008, the National Insurance Company Limited has questioned the impugned award, dated 17th September, 2007, passed in MAC Petition No. 48 of 2005, titled as Hem Lata versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, which is subject matter of FAO No. 533 of 2007, to the extent of liability whereby the National Insurance Company has been saddled with 25% of the liability. 4. Before I deal with FAOs No. 533 of 2007 and 538 of 2008, I deem it proper to decide FAO No. 26 of 2008 at the first instance. FAO No. 26 of 2008: 5. 4. Before I deal with FAOs No. 533 of 2007 and 538 of 2008, I deem it proper to decide FAO No. 26 of 2008 at the first instance. FAO No. 26 of 2008: 5. Admittedly, the Presiding Officer/M.A.C.T.-II, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur (H.P.) has dismissed the claim petition filed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Hamirpur, whereby it had claimed damages suffered by the bus, bearing registration No. HP-22- 2 394, by holding that Uttam Chand, the driver of the HRTC had caused the accident, and the HRTC, being the owner, cannot claim compensation or damages because of his own employee, which was determined by the award, dated 30th March, 2007 in M.A.C. Petition No. 62 of 2005/RBT 2/06, has attained finality, which is Ext. R-2 in MAC Petition, copy of which is also made available by Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, in the Court, made part of the file. 6. I have gone through the evidence and perused the pleadings and come to the conclusion that the claimant has proved that the accident was outcome of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the HRTC. It is also apt to record herein that the Tribunal in impugned award-II has returned the same findings. 7. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal-I has fallen in error in saddling the National Insurance Company with 25% liability and the impugned award-I needs to be modified to the extent whereby the National Insurance Company has been saddled with 25% liability and HRTC is to be saddled with the entire liability. 8. Accordingly, the impugned award-I, made in MAC Petition No. 48 of 2005 is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is allowed. FAO No. 533 of 2007: 9. The claimant-appellant-Smt. Hem Lata had filed claim petition, being MAC Petition No. 48 of 2005, claiming compensation to the tune of ` ten lacs as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 10. The respondents in the claim petition have contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 11. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal-I: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. HP-22- 2394 by respondent No. 2? ...OPP 2. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tralla No. HR-63- 1839 by respondent No. 4 as alleged? 11. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal-I: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of bus No. HP-22- 2394 by respondent No. 2? ...OPP 2. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tralla No. HR-63- 1839 by respondent No. 4 as alleged? ...OPR-1& 2 3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? ...OPP 4. Whether the respondent No. 4 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the Tralla in question at the time of accident? ... OPR-5 5. Whether the Tralla No. HR-63-1839 was being driven or used in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ... OPR-5 6. Relief.” 12. The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal-I, after examining the pleadings and scanning the oral as well as documentary evidence on file, awarded Rs.` 2,42,332/-, which is meager on the face of it. 13. The Tribunal-I has fallen in error while determining the compensation under various heads. The Tribunal-I ought to have awarded the compensation while keeping in view the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused to the claimant-appellant due to the said accident, which is not in dispute. 14. The Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , had discussed all aspects and laid down guidelines how a guess work is to be done and how compensation is to be awarded under various heads. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 to 14 of the judgment hereinbelow: “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. In the case Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All ER 563, it was said: "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his "lost years", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected "years of survival". You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well-nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money." 12. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 13. This Court in the case of C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 , in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed (at p. 380): "In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable." 14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said :- "Non-pecuniary loss : the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases." 15. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases." 15. The said judgment was also discussed by the Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, while granting compensation in such a case. It is apt to reproduce para-7 of the judgment hereinbelow: “7. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 16. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 & 9 of the judgment hereinbelow: “8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 & 9 of the judgment hereinbelow: “8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 9. The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 17. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771, also discussed the entire law and laid down the guidelines how to grant compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 & 18 of the judgment “16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 , this Court considered large number of precedents and laid down the following propositions: “The provision of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: “Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” 17…………………… 18. In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.” 18. Admittedly, the claimant-appellant, who was a house wife, who was maintaining her family, has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45%, as is evident from Ext. PW-2/A and the statement of Dr. Dinesh Thakur, PW-2. Not only the claimant-appellant is suffering and had suffered throughout, but it has affected her life and has made her life miserable. She is not in a position to now perform her rights and duties as a house wife. The age of the claimant-appellant is 35 years, i.e. the budding age. She is not in a position to maintain her matrimonial home, domestic affairs and is not even in a position to take care of her children. 19. The Tribunal-I has recorded findings and held that the claimant-appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.` 1,00,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and has also awarded Rs.` 42,706/- under the head 'Medical Expenses', Rs. ` 31,626/- under the head 'Travelling Expenses' Rs. `18,000/- for the services of an attendant. 20. As discussed hereinabove, the claimant-appellant is deprived of amenities of life and compensation to the tune of Rs.` 50,000/- has been awarded to her under the head 'loss of amenities of life', which is too meager. 21. It is apt to record herein that the findings recorded by the Tribunal-I have not been questioned by the respondents. Thus, keeping in view the facts of the case read with the judgments made by the Apex Court, I deem it proper to enhance the compensation under the head 'loss of amenities of life' to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, i.e. enhanced by Rs.` 5 0,000/-. 22. Thus, keeping in view the facts of the case read with the judgments made by the Apex Court, I deem it proper to enhance the compensation under the head 'loss of amenities of life' to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, i.e. enhanced by Rs.` 5 0,000/-. 22. Admittedly, the claimant-appellant has not been awarded compensation under the head 'loss of future income'. She is not in a position to earn anything because she has suffered 45% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident and is now virtually dependent. 23. While keeping all the factors in view, I am of the considered view that the claimant has lost earning capacity and can be safely held by guess work that the disability has affected her income capacity to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 25. The age of the appellant-claimant, as pleaded and proved, at the time of accident, was 35 years. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, I deem it proper to apply multiplier of 14'. Thus, the claimant-appellant is entitled to ` Rs. 2,000/- x 12 = Rs.` 24,000/- x 14 = Rs.` 3,36,000/- under the head 'loss of future income' with interest as awarded by the Tribunal-I, but from the date of the impugned award and not from the date of presentation of the claim petition. 26. Having said so, the impugned award-I deserves to be modified and is modified as indicated hereinabove. FAO No. 538 of 2008: 27. While going through the record, it is proved that the claimant-appellant has suffered injuries in the same accident and had to undergo further treatment in terms of the Doctor's advice. 28. The respondents have not questioned the impugned award-II made by Tribunal-II in this case, but the fact of the matter is that the claimant has claimed compensation to the tune of ` ten lacs on account of the injuries sustained by him, but has been awarded Rs. 35,552/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition. 29. 35,552/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition. 29. The fact that the claimant-appellant had suffered injuries at hip joint, was admitted in hospital for ninety two days and was advised to undergo further treatment, is evident from Ext. PW-6/B. The said aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal- II and has also fallen in error in not calculating the amount which the appellant-claimant would have spent during the period he was admitted in the hospital. 30. By guess work, it can be safely held that he could have spent at least Rs. ` 50,000/- in the hospital during the period he was admitted and would have to spend and incur expenditure on future treatment. 31. Keeping all these factors and the fact that the respondents have not questioned the impugned award-II in view, I deem it proper to award a lump-sum amount of Rs.` 80,000/- inclusive of the amount already awarded to him in terms of the impugned award-II with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 31. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the impugned award-II merits to be modified and is modified accordingly. 32. All the appeals are disposed of alongwith pending applications, as indicated hereinabove. 33. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on each of the files.