ORDER : This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 26.08.2010 passed by the learned of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S (MAC) No. 194 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,807/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant under the following heads: (i) Cost of medicines Rs.807/- (ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- (iii) Misc. Expn. for loss of amenities, discomfort, fooding, lodging etc. Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.1,00,807/- [2] Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimant was working as a Cook with the BSF. While he was on vacation and had visited his native place at Tripura he met with an accident on 25.12.2006. He was hit by Auto bearing No.TR-01-K-0420. He was immediately taken to the G. B. P. Hospital at Agartala. He was admitted in the hospital on 25.12.2006 and was discharged therefrom on 12.03.2007 i.e. after 76 days. Thereafter the claimant did not recover and he was readmitted in the Hospital at Agartala on 22nd May, 2007 and remained admitted there till 18th June, 2007 for a period of 28 days. Again the claimant did not recover and within 12 days he was again admitted on 30th June, 2007 and discharged on 3rd August, 2007 i.e. after 35 days. Basically the claimant was virtually immobile from 25.12.2006 till 3rd August, 2007. It appears that thereafter the claimant started working but he again developed problems arising out of the injuries and on 20.03.2009 he was admitted at the Gujarmal Modi Hospital & Research Centre for Medical Sciences, Delhi (for short the G.M. Modi Hospital, Delhi). He remained there for 21 days from 23rd March, 2009 to 13th April, 2009. Major operation was performed on the claimant and he also had to undergo plastic surgery. Thereafter the claimant was again admitted in the G. M. Modi Hospital, Delhi on 14.07.2009 and he remained admitted there for seven days till 21.07.2009 for follow up treatment. Unfortunately, the treatment did not end there and he was again admitted on 16.12.2009 and discharged on 24.12.2009 i.e. he remained in hospital for another 8(eight) days and that time the income of the claimant was about Rs.16,000/- per month. Thereafter a Medical Board of the BSF met and assessed his disability at 83%. Unfortunately, the treatment did not end there and he was again admitted on 16.12.2009 and discharged on 24.12.2009 i.e. he remained in hospital for another 8(eight) days and that time the income of the claimant was about Rs.16,000/- per month. Thereafter a Medical Board of the BSF met and assessed his disability at 83%. The learned tribunal rejected this disability certificate only on the ground that it is not by a disability Board constituted by the Government. [3] Cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are not decided on the basis of the law laid down in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. However, even in MACT cases there should be a disability certificate of a board which has some legal sanctity. In this case disability certificate was issued by a three member board of doctors of the BSF namely, Dr. Anirban Roy, CMO (SG) SHQ-BSF, KNG, Dr. K.L. Bagwat, MO 142 BN BSF and Dr. M. C Murmu, M.O, 10th Bn. BSF. BSF is also one of the premiere institutions of the country and I fail to understand how the tribunal could have doubted the veracity and correctness of the certificate issued by a Medical Board of the BSF. The board also held that the claimant was unfit for military service. [4] During the course of this appeal the claimant has filed an application for leading additional evidence. The documents which the claimant wants to file are all documents issued by the BSF. There can be no doubt with regard to their genuineness and therefore, I accept the same, allow the application and admit the documents in evidence and they are read in evidence for the purpose of assessing the compensation. [5] The first document is an opinion of the Medical Board whereby it has been decided to discharge the claimant from service by retiring him from service, along with this a detailed disability certificate which shows that the claimant suffered 10% disability to the upper right limb and 82.67% disability to the right lower limb. On the basis the total disability of percentage for both the limbs had been assessed at 83.48%. [6] On going through the disability certificate which is a detailed one I find that right leg is the major cause for the disability is concerned. On the basis the total disability of percentage for both the limbs had been assessed at 83.48%. [6] On going through the disability certificate which is a detailed one I find that right leg is the major cause for the disability is concerned. As far as the hip, ankle and foot is concerned there is virtually no loss of flexibility of movement. The loss of flexibility and movement is 100% in relation to the knee. The problem area appears to be the knee and not the rest of the leg. The medical certificate itself shows that the claimant can walk on plain surfaces. He can also walk on a slope and climb stairs though with difficulty. He, however cannot squat on the floor, cannot sit cross-legged, cannot kneel and cannot turn on his feet. Therefore, I will have to assess his loss of earning capacity keeping into consideration all these factors. [7] One of the additional documents placed on record is another discharge summary of the G. M. Modi, Hospital, Delhi which shows that the claimant was again admitted there on 30th August, 2010 and discharged on 04.09.2012. He was also admitted at G. M. Modi, Hospital, Delhi on 09.12.2010 and discharged therefrom on 15.12.2010 for follow up treatment for a period of 5/6 days. The claimant has finally been discharged from service by retiring him from service with effect from 01.02.2013. His pay at the time of his discharge was Rs.25,200/-. The claimant has also produced on record a disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board of the State of Tripura which shows that his disability is 60% and there is restricted movement and there is shortening of right leg by about 3 inches. [8] To say the least the manner in which the award has been passed shows total lack of knowledge of the very basic principles relating to award of compensation in cases of personal injuries. [9] The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. [9] The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paisa. [10] It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few. [11] The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent: “Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.” [12] Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: “Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good.” [13] The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. [14] In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held: “Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given.” [15] In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus: “To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment.” [16] In Phillips versus Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: “You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered.” Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases “should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure”. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to “hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing”, should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. [17] Mc Gregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: “The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. [17] Mc Gregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: “The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.” [18] In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held: “The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” [19] In R.D. Hattangadi versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus: “Broadly speaking, while fixing the 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 are 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 as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they shall include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the 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, un or sit; (iii) damages for 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.” [20] In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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.” [21] In Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014)3 SCC 210 the Apex Court has granted compensation under the heads of medical expenses, future treatment, pain and suffering, cost of attendance etc. in a case of similar nature. [22] Applying the aforesaid principle, I now proceed to assess the compensation under the various heads: [23] The claimant was working as a Cook at the relevant time and from the record it appears that though his treatment was long all his medical expenses were reimbursed by his employer. Therefore, only receipts of Rs.807/- have been proved on record. However, the treatment has gone on for so long and for that there would be other incidental expenses, some of which are not reimbursed and for some of which no receipts are kept. Therefore, I assess Rs.10,000/- as cost of medicines in addition to what has been paid by the employer. However, the treatment has gone on for so long and for that there would be other incidental expenses, some of which are not reimbursed and for some of which no receipts are kept. Therefore, I assess Rs.10,000/- as cost of medicines in addition to what has been paid by the employer. [24] As far as loss of income is concerned the claimant did not actually lose income while he was in service but he has lost a lot of salary which he would have got by way of encashment of leave at the time of his retirement. All his leave must have been utilized during the period of his treatment. An employee can encash six months of his leave at the time of retirement and since his salary at the time of his retirement was Rs.25,200/- I award him Rs.1,51,200/- for loss of actual income. [25] The claimant has undergone immense pain and suffering. His hospitalization itself extends to almost 200 days. He has been under treatment for more than 3(three) years. During this period he must have been looked after by his family members and friends and at a very conservative estimate I assess the attendant expenses at Rs.500/- per day when he was in hospital and for 200(two-hundred) days the charges work out to Rs.1,00,000/-. The attendant charges for the attendance at home is assessed at Rs.100/- per day and for 895 days they work out to Rs.89,500/- or say Rs.90,000/-. He is accordingly awarded Rs.1,90,000/- for attendant charges. [26] Now comes the question of loss of future. The claimant is not totally unable to work. He can walk with crutches. Even without crutches with difficulty he can walk. He is able to climb stairs. The certificate issued by the BSF authorities clearly shows that the major damage is to his knee. The claimant was a Cook and he can work as a Cook but his efficiency will definitely be hampered. The claimant was discharged from service on 01.02.2013. At that time he was 38 years of age. Though in the Medical Board certificate it is stated that his disability is 83% but I cannot take his loss of income to be 83%. In the disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board, State of Tripura his disability has been assessed at 60% that too only in respect of his right leg. Though in the Medical Board certificate it is stated that his disability is 83% but I cannot take his loss of income to be 83%. In the disability certificate issued by the District Disability Medical Board, State of Tripura his disability has been assessed at 60% that too only in respect of his right leg. Keeping all these factors into consideration I assess the loss of income at 30% of his total income (Rs.25,200/-) i.e. Rs.7560/- per month or Rs.90720/- per year. Since the claimant was 38 years at the time of his discharge the multiplier would be 15 and the claimant is awarded Rs.13,60,800/- under this head. [27] Next comes the question of loss of non pecuniary damages. The claimant has been awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. In my view this amount is on the lower side keeping in view the fact that the claimant remained hospitalize for more than six months and he was under treatment for more than 3 (three) years. Therefore, I assess the compensation for pain and suffering at Rs.1,00,000/-. [28] The claimant has suffered permanent injury to his leg which has been shortened by three inches. He cannot flex his knee and his knee cannot move at all. He is crippled for the rest of his life. Though he was a Cook, he was working in the BSF which is an active para military force. He must have been engaging in physical activities in the BSF which he cannot do so now. Keeping in view the nature of injuries I award him another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life, future discomfort etc. [29] The total compensation is, therefore, assessed at Rs. (10,000/- + 1,51,200/- + 1,90,000/- + 13,60,800/- + 1,00,000/- + 1,00,000/-) = Rs.19,12,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to interest on the awarded amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount of compensation along with proportionate interest thereupon in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amount(s), if any, which it has already paid or deposited. [30] The claimant has been awarded the huge amount and he must have been got a large number of pension from his employer. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amount(s), if any, which it has already paid or deposited. [30] The claimant has been awarded the huge amount and he must have been got a large number of pension from his employer. It is therefore, ordered that out of the amount so deposited only Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released immediately to the claimant and the balance shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of five years at the first instance and thereafter sum of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant after every two years till the entire amount is released to him. [31] The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Send down the lower Court records forthwith.