JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award, dated 25th June, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Una, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.17 of 2006, titled Puran Singh vs. Keshav Rachiyata and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2.65 lacs, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant, and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The insurer, the driver and the owner/insured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. Only the claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 3. Thus, the question to be determined in the instant appeal is – Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate? 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as also the impugned award. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 4, 21, 26 and 27 of the impugned award hereunder: “4. The petitioner had been immediately rushed to the Maheshwari Hospital Pvt. Limited, Maheshwari Nagar, Bye Pass, Mathura from where he had been shifted to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi on the same day. He was stated to have discharged on 19.11.2005 from Safdarjang Hospital. After having been operated on 30.10.2005, he was again admitted to Safdarjang Hospital on 23.11.2005 for the treatment of his injured right leg, which was also operated on 6.12.2005 and was discharged therefrom on 12.12.2005. He continued to receive follow up treatment up till 28.12.2005 from Safdarjang Hospital. Thereafter he received treatment from the Baraj Life Care Hospital & Trauma Centre, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur (Pb.). 21. To substantiate the aforesaid fact he examined Dr.Rachhpal Singh, Incharge Bharaj Life Care Hospital & Trauma Centre, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. He has appeared as PW3. As per this witness the petitioner Puran Singh had been admitted in his Hospital on 9.1.2006 with septicemia due to infected nailing of the femur. He was operated and discharged on 22.1.2006. He has proved and placed on record discharge slip vide Ext.PW3/A. Further as per him the patient was against admitted for another operation on 5.7.2006 and discharged on 4.8.2006. He was operated and discharged on 22.1.2006. He has proved and placed on record discharge slip vide Ext.PW3/A. Further as per him the patient was against admitted for another operation on 5.7.2006 and discharged on 4.8.2006. The petitioner was again admitted on 4.10.2006 for plating and grafting of femur and was discharged on 10.10.2006. He was again admitted on 12.10.2006 for removal of the plates and discharged on 15.10.2006. The bills in relation to the treatment and the aforesaid operations have been placed and proved as Ext.PW-3/B to Ext.PW-3/F. As per the doctor about Rs.60,000/- had been spent by the petitioner on the bills issued by the Hospital. 26. As per PW2 Dr.S.P. Kanwar, the petitioner has been assessed to be permanently disabled to the extent of 30% in relation to the right lower limb as per Ext.PW2/A. He has further denied that the disability will be decreased with the passage of time. As per the doctor the disability qua whole body can be reckoned at 7.5%. Since admittedly the disability is only respect of right lower limb it can really be reckoned 7.5% in respect of the whole body. Seeing to be the age of the petitioner which was around 25 years at the time of accident, and that he was working as driver it can well be presumed that he was atleast earning Rs.3,000/- per month. After the standard deducting in relation to his owner needs that is 1/3rd of his income, his income is assessed as Rs.2,000/- and applying multiplier of 16, the total loss of future earning at 7.5% comes to approximately Rs.40,000/- (7.5% of Rs.3,84,000/-) and the petitioner is held entitled to the same on account of future loss of earning. 27. The evidence on record goes to show that the petitioner was bed ridden for sufficiently long time and had to regularly got for follow up treatment right from 2005 till 2007, to be precise till 15.10.2007 he had to undergo many operations. He did suffer pain and mental agony for almost 2 years.” 5. 27. The evidence on record goes to show that the petitioner was bed ridden for sufficiently long time and had to regularly got for follow up treatment right from 2005 till 2007, to be precise till 15.10.2007 he had to undergo many operations. He did suffer pain and mental agony for almost 2 years.” 5. The Tribunal has positively recorded the finding that the claimant/injured remained under treatment for about two years and during this period, he also remained admitted in different hospitals for a pretty long time, i.e. from 30th October, 2005 till 19th November, 2005, from 23rd November, 2005 till 12th December, 2005, in Safdarjang Hospital, from 9th January, 2006 till 22nd January, 2006, 5th July, 2006 to 4th August, 2006, from 4th October, 2006 to 10th October, 2006 and lastly from 12th October, 2006 to 15th October, 2006 in Bharaj Life Care Hospital & Trauma Centre, Jalandhar. He was operated upon several times during the period of his hospitalization. 6. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the petitioner has undergone pain and suffering a lot and because of the disability suffered by the claimant, has to undergo pain and suffering throughout his life. Therefore, the compensation to be awarded in such injury cases must be commensurate with the pain and sufferings undergone and has to undergo as also disability suffered by the claimant. 7. The Apex Court in series of cases has laid certain guidelines as to how compensation has to be granted in injury cases. 8. 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 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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." 9. The said judgment was also discussed by the Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, while granting compensation in such a case. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 7 of the judgment hereinbelow: “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.” 10. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787, also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787, also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. 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.” 11. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others, 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 hereinbelow: “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 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.” 12. Applying the above tests, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. 13. The claimant, as is evident from the discussion made hereinabove, had suffered a lot and has to suffer throughout his life. Therefore, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs under the head ‘pain and suffering undergone’ and Rs.1.00 lac under the head ‘future pain and suffering’. 14. Another fact which cannot be overlooked is that because of the accident, the claimant suffered 30% disability in relation to the lower limb and 7.5% qua whole body, which would affect the prospects of his earnings in future also. Therefore, the claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs.1.80 lacs under the head ‘future loss of earning’. 15. It is also evident from the facts of the case that the claimant was taken to hospital on many occasions. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/- under the head ‘conveyance and other charges’, which, to my mind, is meager and needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded in favour of the claimant under the head ‘transportation charges’. 16. In addition to above, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the claimant remained under treatment for about two years and during that period, also remained hospitalized for a considerable long period on different occasions, as discussed hereinabove. Therefore, by exercising guess work, attendant charges at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month are also required to be awarded in favour of the claimant at least for a period of one year. Therefore, by exercising guess work, attendant charges at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month are also required to be awarded in favour of the claimant at least for a period of one year. Hence, the claimant is also awarded Rs.3,000 x 12 = Rs.36,000/- under the head ‘attendant charges’. 17. The Tribunal, after examining the material placed on record, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- under the head ‘expenditure on medication’. However, again the Tribunal has fallen in error in not awarding any amount for future treatment. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.1.00 lac under the head ‘expenses qua future treatment’. 18. In view of the above discussion, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.8,01,000/-, under the following different heads: i) Pain and sufferings undergone: Rs.2.00 lacs. ii) Future pain and sufferings: Rs.1.00 lac iii) Loss of future earning: Rs.1,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs.1.80 lacs iv) Transportation charges: Rs.50,000/- v) Attendant charges: Rs.36,000/- vi) Medical expenses incurred: Rs.1,35,000/- vi) Expenses qua future treatment: Rs.1,00,000/- 19. The above amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till deposit. 20. The impugned award is modified as indicated above and the appeal is allowed. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest within a period of six weeks from today and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant forthwith, after proper identification. 21. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.