Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Appellant-claimant-injured has questioned the award, dated 27th February, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal"), in MAC Petition No. 45 of 2004, titled as Gurdial Singh versus Hoshiar Singh, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.54,200/- with 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization of the amount came to be awarded in his favour (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. In order to determine whether the amount awarded is just and appropriate, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the case, which has given birth to the impugned award. Brief facts: 5. The appellant-claimant-injured, who is working as a Constable with the Himachal Pradesh Police, was travelling from Una to Police Lines, Jhalera on 24th January, 2004, on a scooter, bearing registration No. HP-20 A-6150, collided with a truck, bearing registration No. HP-19-0476, which was parked in the middle of the road, at about 8.30 p.m., near 'Ganesh Petrol Pump', sustained injuries, was taken to hospital, referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted from 25th January, 2004 to 6th March, 2004, had undergone various tests and operations, has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2, filed reply and resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken therein. The insurer has also filed separate reply. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 2nd August, 2005: "1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident caused by wrong parking of the truck (No. HP-19-0476) by the respondent No. 1, Hoshiar Singh, on January 24, 2004 near Ganesh Filling Station, Una? OPP 2. If the above issue 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the truck in question was insured with respondent 3, United India Insurance Company Ltd.? OPP 4. OPP 2. If the above issue 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the truck in question was insured with respondent 3, United India Insurance Company Ltd.? OPP 4. Whether the respondent 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so, to what effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the scooter allegedly involved in the accident? OPR-3 6. Whether the petitioner was himself a tortfeaser and therefore not entitled to compensation? OPR-3 7. Relief." 8. The appellant-claimant-injured has examined Dr. G. Upadhaya as PW-1, HHC Satwinder Singh as PW-2, Shri Purshotam Lal as PW-3, Dr. R.K. Sharma as PW-4, appeared himself in the witness box as PW-5 and placed on record photocopies of MLC, FIR, discharge summary & disability certificate as Ext. PW-1/A, Ext. PW-2/A, Ext. PW-4/A & Ext. PW-4/B, respectively. The respondents have not led any evidence but have filed before the Tribunal the photocopies of driving licence and insurance policy as Ext. R-1 and Ext. RX, respectively. Thus, the evidence led by the appellant-claimant- injured has remained unrebutted. Issue No. 1: 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has held that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence of the appellant-claimant-injured and the truck driver, namely Shri Hoshiar Singh and accordingly decided issue No. 1. The findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are not in dispute, are accordingly upheld. 10. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. Issues No. 3 to 6: 11. The Tribunal has decided issues No. 3 to 6 against the respondents and in favour of the appellant-claimant-injured. The respondents have not questioned the same, thus, the findings returned on these issues are to be upheld. 12. However, I have examined the record. It was for the insurer to prove issues No. 4 to 6, has failed to discharge the onus, thus, rightly came to be decided in favour of the appellant-claimant injured and against the insurer. Therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 4 to 6 are accordingly upheld. 13. The insurer has also not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3. Therefore, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 4 to 6 are accordingly upheld. 13. The insurer has also not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3. I have gone through the insurance policy, Ext. RX. The offending truck was duly insured with respondent No. 3. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 3 are also upheld. Issue No. 2: 14. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in assessing the compensation for the following reasons: 15. The appellant-claimant-injured has suffered 25% permanent disability and remained admitted in PGI Chandigarh from 25th January, 2004 to 6th March, 2004, which fact stands proved by the appellant-claimant-injured by leading oral as well as documentary evidence, which has remained unrebutted. 16. The disability certificate, Ext. PW-4/B, contains the details how the appellant-claimant-injured stands disabled and what is its effect on his physical frame and enjoyment of life, which has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while granting compensation. 17. 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. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 to 14 of the judgment herein: “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. 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". 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. 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. 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." 18. 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." 18. 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 herein: “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. 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.” 19. 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 and 9 of the judgment herein: “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. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 and 9 of the judgment herein: “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.” 20. 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 herein: “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 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). 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. …………………………. 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.” 21. The Tribunal has held that the appellant-claimant-injured has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25%, thus, has lost earning capacity to the tune of Rs.750/- per month, i.e. Rs.9,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier of 6'. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head 'medical expenses' on the ground that the amount stands withdrawn by the appellant-claimant injured as medical reimbursement. 22. The Tribunal has fallen in an error, while assessing the effect of the injury, which has not shattered the physical frame of the appellant-claimant-injured, but has deprived him of the charm of his life. He had undergone pain and has to undergo pain throughout his life. Thus, the Tribunal has wrongly came to the conclusion that the appellant-claimant-injured is entitled only to Rs.15,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and Rs.5,000/- under the head 'loss of enjoyment and expectation of life'. 23. The disability has affected the earning capacity of the appellant-claimant-injured to the tune of Rs.2,700/- per month while keeping in view his salary as Rs.10,800/-. The appellant-claimant injured was 35 years of age at the time of accident. The multiplier provided is 16' as per the Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act"). In view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in a case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, multiplier of 14' was applicable. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error while assessing the compensation under the heard 'loss of income'. 24. The Tribunal has awarded meager amount under the head 'pain and sufferings' and has also not awarded any amount for the pain and sufferings through which he has to undergo throughout his life, was entitled to Rs.50,000/- on account of the pain and sufferings which he had undergone and Rs.50,000/- on account of the pain and sufferings which he has to undergo throughout his life, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- in lump-sum. 25. Viewed thus, the appellant-claimant-injured was entitled to Rs.2,700 x 12 x 14 = Rs.4,53,600/- + 1,00,000/- = Rs.5,53,600/-. But, as it has been held that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence, 50% was rightly deducted, thus, was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,76,800/-. 26. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the insurer was asked to seek instructions and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- in lump-sum in addition to the amount already paid in terms of the impugned award, has stated that he is under instructions to make a statement that the insurer is ready to pay Rs.50,000/-. 27. Keeping in view the discussions made hereinabove read with the fact that the appellant-claimant-injured is serving with the Himachal Pradesh Police as a Constable, is drawing salary and will also get pension and all service benefits after retirement, I deem it proper to enhance the compensation by Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the amount already paid in terms of the impugned award. 28. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 29. The insurer is directed to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the Registry within four weeks. In default, it is payable with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its final realization. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the appellant-claimant-injured after proper identification strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 30. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.