JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 29th July, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No. 55 of 2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,221/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant and the insurer-respondent No. 1 herein, was saddled with liability, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The owner-cum-driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The only dispute in this appeal is relating to the adequacy of compensation. No other issue is involved in this appeal. 5. In view of the above, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 1, 3 & 4 are upheld. 6. The factum of insurance is admitted. The insurer has failed to prove that the owner-insured has committed any willful breach. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability. 7. The compensation is to be awarded in an injury case under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads by making guess work, as held by the Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 . 8. 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. 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.” 9. 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. 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. 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.” 10. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771 also discussed the entire law and laid down the guidelines how to grant compensation. 11. Admittedly, the claimant remained admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 27th September, 2005 to 27th October, 2005. Thereafter, she had to go for follow-up every after one and half month as per Mark-B. She suffered spinal injury and plates were inserted, the details of which are given in the Discharge Slip (Mark-B). 12. She appeared before the concerned doctor on 13th December, 2005 and 9th February, 2006 and ultimately, Disability Certificate (Mark-A) was issued by the Board of Doctors, at Civil Hospital Sundernagar, District Mandi, which does disclose that the injured has suffered 40% temporary disablement. 13. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in not awarding compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ for the following reason. 14. Admittedly, the claimant was admitted in the hospital for about one month and thereafter, she was not in a position to perform her personal jobs and other vocations for about one year. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of income for one year’. 15. While exercising the guess work, it can be safely held that the monthly income of the deceased would not have been less than Rs.5,000/- at the relevant time because even a labour would not have been earning Rs.5,000/- per month, at the relevant time. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,000/- x 12 = 60,000/- under the head ‘loss of income for one year’. 16. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- under the head ‘loss of future income’. 17. The appellant has moved CMP No. 826 of 2010 for taking on record the Disability Certificate issued by the Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. Taken on record. The Disability Certificate does disclose that the claimant-injured has suffered 25% permanent disability. 3,000/- under the head ‘loss of future income’. 17. The appellant has moved CMP No. 826 of 2010 for taking on record the Disability Certificate issued by the Civil Hospital, Sundernagar. Taken on record. The Disability Certificate does disclose that the claimant-injured has suffered 25% permanent disability. Thus, it can safely be said and held that her disability has affected her earning capacity to the tune of Rs. 1250/- per month. 18. Having said so, the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1250/- x 12 x15 = Rs. 2,25,000/- under the head ‘loss of future income’. 19. The Tribunal has also fallen an error in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. The claimant-injured has suffered spinal injury, which she has to suffer through out her life. She also remained admitted in the hospital for about one month and had to visit the hospital for follow-ups. Accordingly, I deem it proper to held the claimant-injured entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’. 20. She is also held entitled to Rs.25,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 21. The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,221.00 under the head ‘expenditure on medical treatment’, Rs. 8,000/- under the head ‘expenditure on attendant and transportation’, is maintained. 22. Accordingly, the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation under the following heads: i Expenditure on Medical treatment Rs.16,221/- ii Expenditure of attendant and transportation Rs. 8,000/- iii Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- iv Amenities of life Rs.25,000/- v Loss of income for one year Rs.60,000/- vi Loss of future income Rs.2,25,000 Total Rs.3,84,221 23. The insurer-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in her account. 24. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.