Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These two appeals are outcome of a common judgment and award dated 1.11.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition No.23-S/2 of 2006, titled Sh. Naresh Kumar versus Managing Director HPMC Nigam Vihar and others, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against respondent No. 1- Managing Director HPMC Nigam Vihar and respondent No.2 driver Ishwar Dass, jointly and severally and respondent No. 1 was directed to satisfy the award, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. In view of the above, this judgment will govern both these appeals. 3. It appears that in a vehicular accident which took place on 1st April, 2006 at about 7 p.m. at Green Park near Talland, caused by driver Ishwar Dass respondent No.2 herein, while driving Car No. HP-03A-0065 of the Managing Director H.P.M.C Nigam Vihar, Shimla, the claimant Naresh Kumar sustained injuries, was bedridden for two months and under treatment, constraining him to file claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.11,65,320.60, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. The claim petition was contested and resisted by all the respondents in the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal framed following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Car No. HP-03A-0065 by its driver (respondent No.2) as alleged?OPP (ii) Whether the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner? OPR (iii) If issue No. 1 is proved ion affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties. (iv) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR (v) Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the petition by his act and conduct? OPR (vi) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPR (vii) Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Car at the material time. If so, its effect? OPR-3. (viii) Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OPR (vii) Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Car at the material time. If so, its effect? OPR-3. (viii) Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so, its effect? OPR-3. (ix) Relief. 6. The parties have led evidence. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation, in favour of the claimant and directed the driver and owner of the vehicle to satisfy the award. However, insurer came to be exonerated. 8. The owner/insured, by the medium of FAO No.18 of 2009, has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in discharging the insurer from the liability and saddling the owner and driver with the liability. The claimant, by the medium of FAO No. 48 of 2009 has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of the compensation. Issue No.1. 9. The claimant has led evidence, oral as well as documentary, and proved that the driver of the offending Car has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently on the date of the accident and caused the accident. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paras 10 to 17 of the impugned judgment. The FIR came to be lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, it is proved that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No.2. 10. It was for the respondents to prove that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence of the claimant and the driver of the offending car, has not led any evidence to prove that the claimant was in any way negligent. It is held that it was not a case of contributory negligence. The accident was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. In view of the findings returned on issue No. 1, the findings returned on issue No. 2 also merit to be upheld. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 2 are upheld. 11. Before I will deal with issues No. 3 and 8, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 4 to 7. 12. Respondents. In view of the findings returned on issue No. 1, the findings returned on issue No. 2 also merit to be upheld. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 2 are upheld. 11. Before I will deal with issues No. 3 and 8, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 4 to 7. 12. Respondents. i.e., driver, owner/insured had to discharge the onus on these issues. Virtually, all these issues have not been pressed before the Tribunal. Thus, they are precluded from questioning the findings returned on these issues. Even otherwise, these issues are not in dispute in these appeals. Accordingly, the findings returned on these issues are upheld. 13. Before I deal with issue No. 3, I deem it proper to deal with issue No. 8. 14. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner of the vehicle has committed willful breach in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “the Act” for short read with National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment herein: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.” 15. The learned counsel for the insurance company has relied upon the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the owner has committed willful breach. The condition No. 2(c) of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy read as under: “The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of: (a) ….. ….. (b) ….. ……. (c) any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.” [Emphasis added] 16. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was under the state of intoxication with the knowledge and consent of the insured. No such evidence has been led by the insurer that the owner was accompanying the driver and driver had taken the alcohol with the knowledge and consent of the insured. In the given circumstances, how the Tribunal has exonerated the insurer, is not forthcoming. 17. This Court in Khem Chand versus Smt. Uma Devi and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 1, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para-4 of the judgment herein:- “4. In the given circumstances, how the Tribunal has exonerated the insurer, is not forthcoming. 17. This Court in Khem Chand versus Smt. Uma Devi and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 1, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para-4 of the judgment herein:- “4. The law is very well settled that a claim which falls within the purview of an Act policy i.e. a liability falling within the ambit of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) can only be contested by the Insurance Company on the grounds available to it under Section 149 of the Act. It is not permitted to contest the proceedings on any other grounds. Intoxication of the driver is not a ground available to the Insurance Company under Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the liability, which is statutory under Section 147 of the Act, has to be satisfied by the insurer. It may be clarified that in case the insurer in addition to the liability which it is bound to cover under the Act covers other liability then in case of such extended liability, it may raise the defences available to it as per terms of the policy, but as far as statutory liability is concerned, the insurer has no authority to incorporate any term in the policy which is not contemplated in terms of Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been permitted to raise this defence and it could not be permitted to recover the awarded amount from the insured.” 18. This ground is not available to the insurer in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act. 19. Having said so, the owner/insured has not committed any willful breach and insurer has to be saddled with the liability and is saddled with the liability. The issue is decided accordingly. Issue No.3. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation which is against the concept of granting of compensation and in breach of the aim and object of the social legislation, needs to be enhanced for the following reasons. 21. In the injury cases, the compensation has to be awarded in two heads “pecuniary damages” and “non-pecuniary damages.” 22. 20. The Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation which is against the concept of granting of compensation and in breach of the aim and object of the social legislation, needs to be enhanced for the following reasons. 21. In the injury cases, the compensation has to be awarded in two heads “pecuniary damages” and “non-pecuniary damages.” 22. 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 made 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. So far nonpecuniary 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. 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. 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. 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." 23. 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. 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.” 24. 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. 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. 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.” 25. 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 hereinbelow: “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 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. 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.” 26. 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.” 26. Applying the test in this case, the compensation is to be awarded as under. 27. The claimant was working as Draftsman in the office of Director, Urban Development, Talland, Shimla and his salary, at that relevant point of time was Rs.13,898/- per month and in addition he was stated to be earning Rs.7,000/- per month from the agricultural work. He was admitted in the hospital for four months and 18 days, i.e., w.e.f. 2.4.2006 to 20th August, 2006. He has lost his earned leave to which he would have been entitled at any later point of time during the job or at the time of his retirement. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.13,898x4= Rs.55,592/-, under the head “loss of income/earned leave”. 28. The claimant has also lost future income because he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% and after retirement he would not be in a position to get reemployment and not in a position to do work at his home. The said injury has affected his earning capacity. Thus, it can be safely held that the claimant has lost source of income to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month. The age of the clamant, at the time of accident, was 43 years but he would have retired at the age of 58 years. The multiplier of “6” was applicable in view of the Second Schedule of the Act. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5000x12x6= Total Rs.3,60,000/-. 29. The claimant has been granted a very meager amount of compensation for pain and suffering because this pain and suffering, he has to carry with him in future also. Thus, it is held that he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering” for future and Rs.25,000/- for the pain and suffering he has already undergone, total to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. 30. The claimant was deprived of his amenities of life. The 30% permanent disability has shattered his physical frame and has badly affected his life. Thus, he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “loss of amenities of life”. 31. 30. The claimant was deprived of his amenities of life. The 30% permanent disability has shattered his physical frame and has badly affected his life. Thus, he is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “loss of amenities of life”. 31. The amount of compensation, on account of boarding and lodging, has been assessed at Rs.5000/- only which is a very meager amount. He had to remain hospitalized and taken earned leave for this period. At least Rs.25,000/- by a guess work, should have been awarded under the head “boarding and lodging”. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.25,000/- under this head. 32. Admittedly, the claimant has proved that he was attended upon by Miss Sari in the hospital during the treatment and also has been attended upon at his home. At least, the claimant should have been awarded attendant charges for the period he has remained hospitalized, bed ridden and on leave. He has availed four months’ leave, as discussed hereinabove. At least Rs.10,000/- per month should have been awarded. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.10,000/-x4 = Rs.40,000/- under the head “attendant charges”. 33. The claimant was also entitled under the head “medical expenses”. The claimant has proved that he has spent Rs.32000/- on account of medical expenses but was not granted for the reasons that the employer has reimbursed the same to him. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in not awarding Rs.32000/- to the claimant to which he was entitled to because he has to suffer for ever and has to be under treatment in view of the disability certificate. At least Rs.50,000/- in lump sum was to be granted under this head. Accordingly Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head. 34. Having said so, the claimant is held entitled to as follows: (i) Loss of income Rs.55,592/- (ii) Loss of future income Rs.3,60,000/- (iii) Pain and sufferings Rs.75,000/- (iv) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/- (v) Boarding and lodging Rs.25,000/- (vi) Attendant charges Rs.40,000/- (vii) Medical expenses Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.6,55,592/- 35. The claimant in all is entitled to Rs.6,55,592/-instead of the amount of Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, compensation to the tune of Rs.6,55,592/- is awarded in favour of the claimant with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its realization and the insurer is saddled with the liability. 36. The claimant in all is entitled to Rs.6,55,592/-instead of the amount of Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, compensation to the tune of Rs.6,55,592/- is awarded in favour of the claimant with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its realization and the insurer is saddled with the liability. 36. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today in the Registry. The Registry, on deposit, is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account, after proper verification. 37. Viewed thus, both the appeals and cross objections No. 313 of 2009 are allowed, along with pending applications, as indicated hereinabove. 38. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.