Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 6.9.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District, Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition No.62 of 2006, titled Padma Devi versus Sh. Tejwant Singh Negi and others, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,35,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Claimant, driver and owner have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on various grounds, taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimant had invoked the jurisdiction of the claims Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on the ground that the driver, namely, Vijay Singh had driven vehicle bearing registration No. HP25-0383 rashly and negligently on 29.8.2002 and had caused the accident, wherein the claimant had sustained injuries. The claimant was brought to Bhabanagar hospital from where, she was referred to IGMC Shimla for further treatment. FIR No. 53 of 2002 was registered at police Station Bhabanagar. The petitioner is stated to have spent more than Rs.2,50,000/- on her treatment and after the accident the claimant has become permanently disabled to the extent of 35% and has affected her agricultural and horticulture vocation, the details of which have been given in the impugned award. 5. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed: (i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing no. HP25-0383? OPP (ii) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and at what rate of interest? OPP. (iii) Whether the present petition is not maintainable?OPR-3. (iv) Whether there was no valid and effective driving license with the driver at the time of accident?OPR-3. (v) Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR-3 (vi) Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger, if so its effect? OPR-3. OPP. (iii) Whether the present petition is not maintainable?OPR-3. (iv) Whether there was no valid and effective driving license with the driver at the time of accident?OPR-3. (v) Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy?OPR-3 (vi) Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger, if so its effect? OPR-3. (vii) Whether the driver of the vehicle was driving the bus under the influence of liquor at the time of accident? OPR-3. (viii) Relief. 6. The claimant led evidence and has examined Dr. L.R. Verma as PW3. He deposed that he was Chairman of Disability Board and the claimant had suffered fracture in neck scapular left with fracture superior pubic rami right with fractured-6 spine with straightening of cervical spine with transverse process fracture of L-1 and L2 and C-3 abdominal injury with spelenectomy. The disability of the claimant, on examination was assessed to be 35%, which was permanent in nature. He stated that the claimant cannot do any hard work of agriculture, horticulture and labour due to disability suffered. 7. The claimant stated that she was doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.4000-5000/- per month which has remained un-rebutted. The disability certificate Ext. PW1/A do disclose 35% permanent disability. Ext. PW1/B is the copy of FIR. The claimant has proved that her income was Rs.4000-5000 per month. She has placed on record Taxi bills Mark-B to Mark-F, medical bills Mark-G-1 to G-64 and MLC Ext. PW1/C, which do disclose that the claimant has undergone pain and suffering which has affected her amenities of life. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant resisted the appeal on the ground of adequacy of compensation and argued that the compensation was to be awarded in terms of the guidelines issued by the apex Court in series of judgments. 9. In the injury cases, the compensation has to be awarded under two heads “pecuniary damages” and “non-pecuniary damages.” 10. 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. 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 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". 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. 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. 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." 11. 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 insuch 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. 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.” 12. 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. 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.” 13. 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. 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. 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). (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.” 14. Applying the test in this case, it is to be determined whether the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate. 15. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 10 to 18 of the impugned award as to how it has come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to compensation. In para 16 the claimant, on the basis of medical bills MarkG-3 to Mark G-64 is stated to have spent Rs. 40,000/- on her treatment and on the basis of taxi bills Mark-A to Mark-F is stated to have spent Rs.23,500/- and has been held entitled to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- on attendant and transportation charges. In para 16 the claimant, on the basis of medical bills MarkG-3 to Mark G-64 is stated to have spent Rs. 40,000/- on her treatment and on the basis of taxi bills Mark-A to Mark-F is stated to have spent Rs.23,500/- and has been held entitled to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- on attendant and transportation charges. In para 17, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- on account of mental and physical pain and Rs.80,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life and loss of income of the claimant has been assessed at Rs.4,00,000/- but inadvertently in the last para of para 18, while summing up the expenditure on medical treatment is held as Rs.40,000/-, expenditure on attendant and transportation Rs.1,35,000/-, pain and suffering Rs.1,60,000 and loss of amenities of life Rs.4,00,000/- whereas it should have been recorded as Rs.80,000/- on account of mental and physical pain and Rs.80,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life and Rs.4,00,000/- on account of loss of income. Thus, the Tribunal has inadvertently recorded the same. 16. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to determine to which amount, the claimant is entitled to. 17. The medical bills Mark G-3 to G64 which do disclose that the claimant has spent Rs.40,000/-, on medical treatment. Thus, she is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head “medical treatment”. She has placed on record taxi bills Mark-A to Mark-F to the tune of Rs.23,500/- under the head “transportation charges”. Thus she is held entitled to Rs.23500/- under the head “transportation charges. 18. The MLC Ext. PW1/C and discharge slip Mark-A do disclose that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 29.8.2002 to 25.9.2002. By a guess work, it can safely be held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- under the head “special diet” and also a Rs.10,000/- under the head “attendant charges”. 19. The claimant is also entitled under the head “pain and suffering” which she has undergone and pain and suffering for future. The claimant has suffered 35% disability, is not in a position to discharge agriculture and horticulture vocation and cannot work as a labourer. Thus, it is held that she is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering undergone” and Rs.50,000/- on account of “future pain and suffering”. The claimant has suffered 35% disability, is not in a position to discharge agriculture and horticulture vocation and cannot work as a labourer. Thus, it is held that she is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head “pain and suffering undergone” and Rs.50,000/- on account of “future pain and suffering”. The said injury has shattered her physical frame and has virtually affected her matrimonial home and other amenities of life. Thus, I deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/- under the head “loss of amenities of life”. 20. The claimant has pleaded and proved that her monthly income was Rs.4000/- and she is not in a position to do her agriculture, horticulture and labour work, as discussed hereinabove but she can still perform domestic work. Thus, it can be safely held that she has lost Rs.2500/- per month. The claimant is stated to be 26 years of age at the time of accident and multiplier “16” is applicable, as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sarla Verma and ors. versus Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and anr. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Thus, the claimant is entitled to Rs.2500/-x16x12= Total Rs.4,80,000/-. 21. Having said so, the claimant is held entitled to compensation as follows: (i) Loss of income Rs.4,80,000/- (ii) Medical treatment Rs.40,000/- (iii) Transportation charges Rs.23500/- (iv) Special diet Rs.10,000/- (v) Pain and sufferings undergone Rs.50,000/- (vi) Future pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- (vii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/- (viii) Attendant charges Rs.10,000 Total Rs.7,13,500/- 22. The claimant in all is entitled to Rs.7,13,500/-. with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal. The impugned award is accordingly modified. 23. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire amount, if not already deposited, 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. The excess amount, if any, be released to the appellant, through payees’ cheque account. 24. Viewed thus, the appeal is disposed of along with pending applications, as indicated hereinabove and the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove. 25. The excess amount, if any, be released to the appellant, through payees’ cheque account. 24. Viewed thus, the appeal is disposed of along with pending applications, as indicated hereinabove and the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove. 25. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.