JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 20th February, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ?the Tribunal?) in MAC Petition No. 54 of 2004, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,91,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1, herein and against the respondents-appellants, herein (for short, the ?impugned award?), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant and the driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The Department has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that it is not liable to satisfy the award and the award amount is not just and appropriate. Brief Facts: 4. Chet Ram injured was on his way from Shimla to his native place at Village Nayali, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., on 15th January, 2000, on Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HP-07-1600, was hit by vehicle-Gypsy bearing registration No. HP- 06-1514, near Nehru Park Bhojpur, Sundernager, at about 7.45 p.m., which was being driven Gurbachan Singh, driver of respondents No. 1 & 3 in the claim petition-appellants herein, rashly and negligently. He sustained injuries, was taken to the hospital at Sundernagar and referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. He has suffered 30% disability of the right leg. FIR No. 19 of 2000, under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Sundernagar. 5. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: ?1. Whether the respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle bearing No. HP- 06-1514 on 15.1.2000, at 7.45, near Nehru Park Bhojpur, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in a rash and negligent manner resulting in injuries to the petitioner Chet Ram as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, as to what amount and from whom? ..OPP 3. …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, as to what amount and from whom? ..OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? …OPR(1) 4. Whether the petition is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. as alleged? …OPR(1) 5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his own acts and conduct to file the present petition? ….OPR 6. Relief.? 8. The claimant has examined Dr. P.R. Chauhan (PW-1), Suresh Kumar (PW- 2) and Dr. Pawan Kumar (PW-3). Claimant also appeared in the witness box as PW-4. The Department has examined Bidhi Chand, Division Engineer as RW-1 and driver Gurbachan Singh appeared in the witness box as RW-2. The parties have also placed on record documents, the details of which are given in the impugned award. 9. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has held that the driver has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently and caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,91,000/-, the details of which are given in para-29 of the impugned award. 10. I have perused the impugned award and gone through the record. Issue No. 1. 11. The claimant has proved by leading evidence, oral as well as documentary that driver, namely Gurbachan Singh, had driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on 15.1.2000, at 7.45 p.m., near Nehru Park Bhojpur, in which Chet Ram sustained injuries. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that FIR No. 19 of 2000 was registered against the driver, which has resulted into acquittal. 13. I have gone through the judgment Ext. RW-1/C passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The prosecution case was shrouded in doubts and accordingly, the accused came to be acquitted. 14. The moot question is – whether acquittal in the said case can be a ground to deny compensation? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 15. It is beaten law of land that granting of compensation is a welfare legislation and the hyper- technicalities, mystic maybes, procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play and cannot be made ground to defeat the claim petitions and to defeat the social purpose of granting compensation. 16. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. 16. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 Jammu and Kashmir 81, held that the MV Act is Social Welfare Legislation and the procedural technicalities cannot be allowed to defeat the purpose of the Act. It is profitable to reproduce para 20 of the judgment herein: ?20. Before concluding, it is also observed that it is a social welfare legislation under which the compensation is provided by way of Award to the people who sustain bodily injuries or get killed in the vehicular accident. These people who sustain injuries or whose kith and kins are killed, are necessarily to be provided such relief in a short span of time and the procedural technicalities cannot be allowed to defeat the just purpose of the Act, under which such compensation is to be paid to such claimants.? 17. The findings recorded by the said Court in acquittal cannot be a ground to defeat the rights of the claimants. Even, if the driver is acquitted in the criminal proceedings, that may not be a ground for dismissal of the claim petitions. 18. My this view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354 wherein a bus hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties. The driver earned acquittal in the criminal case on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of God. The Apex Court held that the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of the judgment herein: ?2. The Facts: A stage carriage belonging to the petitioner was on a trip when, after nightfall, the bus hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties of which 8 proved instantaneously fatal. A criminal case ensued but the accused-driver was acquitted on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of God. The Facts: A stage carriage belonging to the petitioner was on a trip when, after nightfall, the bus hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties of which 8 proved instantaneously fatal. A criminal case ensued but the accused-driver was acquitted on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of God. The Accidents Claims Tribunal which tried the claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, came to the conclusion, affirmed by the High Court, that, despite the screams of the passengers about the dangerous overhanging wire ahead, the rash driver sped towards the lethal spot. Some lost their lives instantly; several lost their limbs likewise. The High Court, after examining the materials, concluded: "We therefore sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of R. W. 1 (driver) and consequently the appellant is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant." The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirements of culpable rashness under Section 304A, I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The quantum of compensation was moderately fixed and although there was, perhaps, a case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to re-open the holdings on culpability and compensation.? 19. It is also profitable to reproduce relevant portion of para 8 of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in a case titled Vinobabai and others versus K.S.R.T.C. and another, reported in 1979 ACJ 282 : ? 8. ......................... Thus, the law is settled that when the driver is convicted in a regular trial before the Criminal Court, the fact that he is convicted becomes admissible in evidence in a civil proceeding and it becomes prima facie evidence that the driver was culpably negligent in causing the accident. The converse is not true; because the driver is acquitted in a criminal case arising out of the accident, it is not established even prima facie that the driver is not negligent, as a higher degree of culpability is required to bring home an offence.? 20. The converse is not true; because the driver is acquitted in a criminal case arising out of the accident, it is not established even prima facie that the driver is not negligent, as a higher degree of culpability is required to bring home an offence.? 20. Reliance is also placed on the judgment made by this Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another versus Jarnail Singh and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 174, wherein it has been held that acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whether the driver was negligent or not in causing the accident. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 15 of the judgment herein: ?15. In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments cited hereinabove, it is now well settled law that the acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whether the driver was negligence or not in causing the accident. ................? 21. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly recorded findings on Issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings recorded on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 22. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5. Issues No. 3 to 5. 23. The onus to prove issues No. 3 to 5 was upon the respondents No. 1 to 3 in the claim petition-appellants herein, which they have failed to discharge. The Tribunal has rightly made discussions relating to these issues in the impugned award right from paras 30 to 37. Thus, no interference is required. Issue No. 2. 24. Now, the question is whether the award amount is excessive. 25. The Tribunal while awarding compensation in injury cases has to award compensation under the heads- pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 26. 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 done and how compensation is to be awarded under various heads. 27. 26. 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 done and how compensation is to be awarded under various heads. 27. The Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085 in para-7 of the judgment has held as under: ?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.? 28. 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 in injury cases. 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. 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.? 29. 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. 30. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head =cost of medicines', Rs.20,000/-under the head =pain and sufferings', Rs.10,000/- under the head =loss of amenities of life, Rs.10,000/- under the head =loss of expectation of life', Rs.2,000/- under the head =taxi charges', Rs.24,000/- under the head =loss of income for one year and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head =future loss of income', total compensation amounting to Rs.1,91,000/-. The Tribunal while making the assessment has made discussion right from paras 16 to 29 in the impugned award. 31. Having said so, it is held that the Tribunal has awarded just and appropriate compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are upheld. 32. The Tribunal while making the assessment has made discussion right from paras 16 to 29 in the impugned award. 31. Having said so, it is held that the Tribunal has awarded just and appropriate compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 2 are upheld. 32. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 33. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 34. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.