Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th October, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No.7-S/2 of 2008, titled Munish Kumar vs. Sh. Jasbir Singh, whereby a sum of Rs.2,60,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant and the original respondent (appellant herein) was saddled with the liability, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant filed a claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, as per break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The respondent contested the claim petition by filing a reply. 4. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 on 18.6.2007 near Sikand and Company, Chambaghat, Distt. Solan while driving vehicle No.HP- 14-A-1989? OPP 2. If issue No.1 proved in affirmative, as to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Relief.” 5. The claimant, in support of his claim, has examined five witnesses, while the respondent has not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimant remained un-rebutted. 6. I have gone through the claim petition as well as the evidence led by the claimant. 7. Dr. Desh Raj Chandel has given the details about the injuries sustained by the claimant, which has been discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph-8 of the impugned award. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant was not entitled to compensation. He was asked to show why the claimant was not entitled to compensation. He has admitted that the claimant sustained injuries and suffered multiple fractures, but submitted that the disability certificate was not issued in favour of the claimant. 9. The Tribunal, while determining issue No.2, has rightly recorded the findings in paragraphs 8 to 14 of the impugned award and decided the said issue correctly. 10. Having said so, the appellant has failed to carve out a case for modification of the impugned award. 11. 9. The Tribunal, while determining issue No.2, has rightly recorded the findings in paragraphs 8 to 14 of the impugned award and decided the said issue correctly. 10. Having said so, the appellant has failed to carve out a case for modification of the impugned award. 11. 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 , has 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 in the cases where permanent disability is suffered by the victim of a vehicular accident. 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. 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." 12. Following the law expounded by the Apex Court, this Court, in catena of judgments, has held that in an injury case, the courts are expected to pass an award which appears to be fair, just and proper, and keeping in mind the hardships, discomfort, loss of amenities of life, pain and sufferings undergone and has to undergo by the claimant-injured throughout his/her life. 13. After going through the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount. Unfortunately, since the claimant has not questioned the impugned award, therefore, the same is reluctantly upheld. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is dismissed. 13. After going through the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount. Unfortunately, since the claimant has not questioned the impugned award, therefore, the same is reluctantly upheld. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned award is upheld. 15. The respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount within eight weeks from today in the Registry of this Court, alongwith interest as awarded by the Tribunal, and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. 16. Send down the record after placing a copy of this judgment on the Tribunal’s file.