Judgment : 1. This Appeal arises out of the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Clam Petition No.191/2005 on 31/3/2008 by which the Tribunal has partly allowed the Claim petition and has directed the original respondents no.2 and 3 to pay jointly and/or severally to the claimants Rs.20,500/- as compensation with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till payment is made along with proportionate costs. This amount was directed to be paid as interim compensation under no fault liability. 2. The case of the appellant is that he is working as a Junior Engineer in Water Resources Department of Works Divn-III at Ponda in the State of Goa and getting salary of Rs.16,955/- per month. It is the case of the appellant that on 15/8/2004 at about 5.00 p.m., when he was returning along with his friends in the car owned by his wife, from Pollem Margao, an Ambassador car came from the opposite side from wrong side of the road at Carai, Maxem near Canacona and dashed to the car in which the appellant was travelling. The case of the appellant is that he sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of limbs of left side, abrasions and lacerations. The case of the appellant is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car by the respondent no.1. The appellant/claimant had sought the compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.1,10,150/- for loss of salary, Rs.4,88,000/- for permanent disablement, Rs. 740/- for medical expenses, Rs.3000/- towards traveling expenses, Rs.28,950/-for attendant’s charges, Rs.6000/- towards doctor's fees, Rs.960/- towards X-ray charges, Rs.2200/- for repairs and replacement of eye glasses. Thus, the total amount of Rs.6,90,000/- was sought from the Respondent no.1, who was the driver of the car, the Respondent no.2 the registered owner of the car and Respondent no.3 the Insurance Company. 3. The Respondents no. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement opposing the claim made by the claimant. They denied the averments made in the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter, framed the issues, recorded the evidence and by the impugned award concluded that the claimant had proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the car rashly and negligently because of which the accident occurred and the claimant suffered severe injuries. They denied the averments made in the claim petition. 4. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter, framed the issues, recorded the evidence and by the impugned award concluded that the claimant had proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the car rashly and negligently because of which the accident occurred and the claimant suffered severe injuries. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant is entitled for the amount of Rs.45,500/- towards compensation. Out of this amount, Rs.25,000/- were paid to the claimants as interim compensation under no fault liability. By the impugned award, additional amount of Rs.20,500/- is granted along with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the amount is paid to the claimant. The claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal has filed this appeal and has prayed that the award be modified and the claimant be granted the compensation as claimed by him in the claim petition. The respondents have not filed appeal challenging the impugned award. 5. Heard Shri L. Raghunandan, the learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri E. Afonso, the learned Advocate for Respondent no.3 and with the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have seen the record. 6. Shri L. Raghunandan, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Doctor's Certificate dated 19/11/2005 (Exhibit 43) shows that the percentage of permanent disability suffered by the claimant according to ALIMCO scale is 15% due to restriction of movement of hip and knee joint. The learned Advocate has submitted that Dr. Zelio D'Mello has been examined on behalf of the appellant and he has stated in the evidence that the permanent disability suffered by the appellant is 15% according to ALIMCO scale due to restriction of hip and knee movement. The doctor has further stated in his evidence that the said injury may take 10-12 months to heel and the total period of bed-rest advised to the appellant was one and half months. The learned Advocate has submitted that in view of this, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the appellant as claimed by him for suffering the permanent disablement and the Tribunal has committed an error in granting only Rs.15,000/- on that count. The learned Advocate has submitted that in view of this, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the appellant as claimed by him for suffering the permanent disablement and the Tribunal has committed an error in granting only Rs.15,000/- on that count. The learned Advocate has further submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in granting only Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering of the claimant instead of Rs.50,000/- as claimed by him. According to the appellant, the Tribunal has committed an illegality in not granting any compensation for the loss of salary when it is an admitted position that he was required to avail leave without pay for 199 days. Similarly, the learned Advocate has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting the entire amount as claimed by the appellant towards the medical expenses, traveling expenses, attendant's charges, doctor's fees, x-ray charges, replacement of eye glasses. 7. Shri E. Afonso, the learned Advocate for the Respondent no.3 has submitted that the claim as made by the appellant for the enhanced amount of compensation is unsustainable in law. The learned Advocate has submitted that Dr. Zelio D'Mello who has been examined as a witness on behalf of the appellant has admitted in cross-examination that even with the disability suffered by the appellant, he will be able to do the work. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent no.3, the Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence on record in the form of bills and receipts filed by the appellant and has rightly granted the compensation of Rs.45,500/-under the heads as mentioned in the impugned award. The learned Advocate has submitted that the appellant has not pointed out any perversity in the findings of the Tribunal and the appeal is required to be dismissed. 8. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head “loss of salary” as claimed by him? (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of compensation for the other heads as claimed by him? 9. The learned Presiding Officer has given the finding that the car owned by the respondent no.2 and driven by the respondent no.1 at the time of accident was being rashly and negligently driven and it has resulted in the accident. This finding is not challenged by the respondents. 9. The learned Presiding Officer has given the finding that the car owned by the respondent no.2 and driven by the respondent no.1 at the time of accident was being rashly and negligently driven and it has resulted in the accident. This finding is not challenged by the respondents. Therefore, there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled for the compensation from the respondents. The only issues which are required to be considered are about the quantum of the compensation under the different heads, as claimed by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles which are required to be considered while granting compensation in the case of injury suffered by the claimants. One of the heads under which the claimant can make the claim is “loss of earning during the period of treatment”. In the present case, the appellant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,10,150/- under the head “loss of salary during the leave period” of six and half months (Rs.16,955/- salary per month x 6 and half months). However, the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that he had received salary from his employer during the period for which he was on leave. In view of this, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim as made by the appellant under the head “loss of salary during leave period”. 10. Shri L. Raghunandan, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that though the appellant has received the salary during the period for which he was on leave, but the appellant has lost those number of leaves which otherwise he could have encashed as per the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. In support of this submission, the learned Advocate has relied on the Judgment reported in 1991 MPLJ 925 in the case of Udairams/o Balkishan Joshi Vs. Mohammadusman s/o Shakhrehman and Ors. Shri Afonso, the learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the appellant cannot be granted compensation for the alleged loss of leave encashment as according to the respondent no.3, the appellant has not proved that he was required to take the leave of six and half months because of the injury suffered by him in the accident. 11. Shri Afonso, the learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the appellant cannot be granted compensation for the alleged loss of leave encashment as according to the respondent no.3, the appellant has not proved that he was required to take the leave of six and half months because of the injury suffered by him in the accident. 11. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out that the medical certificates placed on record as document no.8 (collectively) show that the leave availed by the appellant was necessary as per the medical advice. The respondent no.3 has not been able to counter the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. In my view, the appellant is entitled for the loss suffered by him on account of taking the leave of six and half months under compulsion which leave the appellant would have been able to otherwise encash under the Service Rules which govern the service conditions of the appellant. The appellant has not placed on record the calculations in support of his claim under the said head. Therefore, it is directed that the appellant and the respondents shall put forth their calculations before the Registrar of this Court on the basis of the salary which was drawn by the appellant at the relevant time and the Registrar shall finalize the calculations and the amount for which the appellant will be entitled according to the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972. It is further directed that the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount as would be calculated in the above terms to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the amount is paid to the appellant. It is directed that a note of this be taken in the service record of the appellant that he has encashed leave of six and half months and will not be entitled for double payment for that period. 12. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferings of the appellant. The appellant made the claim of Rs.50,000/- under the said head. 12. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- for pain and sufferings of the appellant. The appellant made the claim of Rs.50,000/- under the said head. Shri L. Raghunandan, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is entitled for the amount of Rs.50,000/- under the said head and in support of his submission he has relied on (1995) 1 SCC 551 in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) PVT. LTD and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17 of the above mentioned judgment has observed that when compensation is to be awarded for pain and sufferings and for loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. It is observed that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. The learned Presiding Officer, in the present case, has not considered the relevant factors like age of the appellant and the unusual deprivation he has suffered and the effect thereof on his future life. The appellant at the time of the accident was around 46 years of age. The evidence of Dr. Zelio D'Mello shows that the appellant has not suffered injury of such a type which would hamper his work. It has come on the record that the appellant has not suffered any loss in his earning/salary because of the injuries caused in the accident. Considering this aspect and the fact that the appellant has not brought on record any material to substantiate the claim of Rs.50,000/- under this head, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal under this head is proper. Similarly, the claim as made made by the claimant under the other heads is properly dealt with by the learned Presiding Officer and no infirmity is found in the consideration of these aspects by the learned Presiding Officer. Therefore, the conclusions of the Presiding Officer on the other aspects does not require any interference. 13. In view of the above, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as mentioned in para 11 above. Therefore, the conclusions of the Presiding Officer on the other aspects does not require any interference. 13. In view of the above, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as mentioned in para 11 above. It is held that the appellant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head “loss of salary/leave encashment” along with interest at 9% p.a. chargeable from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is paid to the appellant. 14. A copy of this judgment be sent to the employer of the appellant so as to enable the employer to take an entry in the service record of the appellant that the appellant has received the amount towards leave encashment for six and half months. 15. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. The award passed by the Tribunal is accordingly modified. However, under the circumstances the parties to bear their own costs.