JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 19th March, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Bilaspur) (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. No. 85 of 2005, titled as Mohinder Kumar versus Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant-injured came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The appellant-claimant-injured has called in question the impugned award on the ground the Tribunal has fallen in an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimant-injured has not been able to prove as to how did he suffer any loss on account of the injuries sustained by him. 3. In order to determine this appeal, it is necessary to give a flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand. 4. The claimant-injured, being the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Prakash Chand, while driving bus, bearing registration No. HP-23A-1021, rashly and negligently on 15th June, 2004, at about 7.50 A.M. at village Delag, Tehsil Ghumarwin, in which claimant-injured sustained injuries, was taken to Civil Hospital Ghumarwin, thereafter was referred to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 30th December, 2005: “1. Whether Mohinder Kumar sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, driver of bus No. HP-23A-1021, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether bus No. HP-23A-1021 was being plied without valid registration, fitness certificate and route permit as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of bus No. HP-23A-1021 was not having a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPR-1 7. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition? OPR-1 8. Relief.” 7. Parties have led evidence. Issue No. 1: 8. OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of bus No. HP-23A-1021 was not having a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPR-1 7. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition? OPR-1 8. Relief.” 7. Parties have led evidence. Issue No. 1: 8. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary has held that the claimant-injured has proved that he has sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and determined the issue in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents. The said findings have not been questioned by the owner-insured, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 9. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 7. Issues No. 3 and 7: 10. Both these issues came to be decided against the respondents as not pressed, have not questioned the same. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No.3 and 7 are upheld. Issue No. 4: 11. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being driven without valid documents, has not led any evidence, thus has failed to discharge the onus. Even otherwise, the insurer has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal on the said issue, thus, have attained finality. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.4 are also upheld. Issue No. 5: 12. The onus to prove this issue was on the insurer, has failed to do so. 13. It is apt to record herein that an appeal, being FAO No. 320 of 2011, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Maya Devi and others, arising out of the same accident, came to be determined by this Court vide judgment, dated 15th July, 2016, wherein it has been held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. 14. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer was asked to seek instructions whether the said judgment has been assailed by the insurer. In sequel thereto, Mr. 14. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer was asked to seek instructions whether the said judgment has been assailed by the insurer. In sequel thereto, Mr. J.S. Bagga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer, stated at the Bar that he is under instructions to make a statement that the said findings have not been questioned by the insurer. That being so, the said findings have attained finality. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.5 are upheld. Issue No. 6: 15. I wonder how this issue came to be framed by the Tribunal. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has gone through a sea change and the rigours of Limitation Act for filing claim petitions under the MV Act have been taken away. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 2: 16. The claimant-injured has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.3,62,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 17. It has specifically been pleaded in the claim petition that the claimant-injured has sustained injuries in the vehicular accident, was taken to Civil Hospital Ghumarwin, wherefrom he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, where he remained admitted for about seventeen days. 18. The Tribunal has fallen in a grave error in deciding this issue against the claimant-injured for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 19. The aim and object of awarding compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the claimants and the claim petitions cannot be dismissed on flimsy grounds. 20. The Apex Court and other High Courts have held that the Courts should not succumb to the procedural wrangles and tangles, hyper technicalities and mystic maybes and that should not be a ground to dismiss the claim petition and to defeat the rights of the claimants. 21. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases titled as N.K.V. Bros. 21. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases titled as N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354; Sohan Lal Passi versus P. Sesh Reddy and others, reported in, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2627; and Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in, (2013) 10 SCC 646 , and by this Court in FAO No. 339 & 340 of 2008, titled as NIC versus Parwati & others; FAO No. 172 of 2006, titled as Oriental Insurance Company versus Shakuntla Devi & others; FAO No. 396 of 2012, titled as Asha & others versus Moti Ram & others; FAO No. 4248 of 2013, titled as Magni Devi & others versus Suneel Kumar & others, decided on 13.03.2015; FAO No. 17 of 2008, titled as United India Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Brijbala & others, decided on 20.03.2015; and FAO No. 186 of 2008, titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shri Kishan Chand & others, decided on 01.05.2015. 22. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.2 merit to be set aside. 23. The question is – to which amount of compensation, the claimant-injured is entitled to? 24. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured suffered fracture in ribs, was taken to Civil Hospital, Ghurmarwin, wherefrom was referred to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur and remained admitted there with effect from 16th June, 2004 to 2nd July, 2004, as is evident from discharge slip (Ext. PW2/ A). 25. The Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in, AIR 1995 SC 755 , Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 AIR SCW 4787 and Kavita versus Deepak and others, 2012 AIR SCW 4771, has clearly laid down the principles as to how compensation has to be awarded in cases where the claimant has suffered permanent disability and how the assessment is to be made. 26. 26. The Apex Court in its latest decision in the case titled as Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, reported in, (2015) 7 SCC 252 , while discussing its earlier pronouncements, observed that in injury cases, the compensation would include not only the actual expenses incurred, but the compensation has to be assessed keeping in view the struggle which the injured has to face throughout his life due to the permanent disability and the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering to undergo for the whole life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the said decision hereunder: “11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to the appellant due to his crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of over three months. It is not possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to struggle and face different challenges as being handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases, the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. …………. …………… …………… 18. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 8 SCC 389 wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/-towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.” 27. The claim of the claimant-injured has to be tested in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions supra. 28. The perusal of the discharge slip, Ext. PW2/ A, does disclose that the claimant-injured remained admitted in the hospital with effect from 16th June, 2004 to 2nd July, 2004. He was attended upon by the attendant during the period he was in hospital, has undergone and has to undergo pain and sufferings. 29. It has been averred that the claimant-injured was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing the tailoring work. Thus, it can be safely said and held that he would have been earning not less than Rs.5,000/- per month. He remained admitted in hospital for seventeen days. Thus, by exercising guess work, the claimant-injured is held entitled to Rs.2,500/- under the head 'loss of income for the period he remained admitted'. 30. Dr. D.R. Sehgal has stepped into the witness box and has stated that the claimant-injured could not have worked for about six months due to the injury sustained by him and must have spent about Rs. one lac on his treatment and medicines. The claimant-injured has also placed on record some of the medical bills. Keeping in view the statement of the doctor and the period for which the claimant-injured remained admitted in hospital, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 'medical expenses'. 31. one lac on his treatment and medicines. The claimant-injured has also placed on record some of the medical bills. Keeping in view the statement of the doctor and the period for which the claimant-injured remained admitted in hospital, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 'medical expenses'. 31. He remained admitted in hospital for seventeen days and must have been attended upon by an attendant during the said period, thus, was entitled to compensation under the head 'attendant charges', which he would have paid not less than Rs.5,000/- plus other expenses, which can roughly be assessed at Rs.10,000/-. 32. He has also undergone pain and sufferings during the said period and has to suffer throughout his life. Thus, at least, Rs.50,000/- was to be awarded under the head 'pain and sufferings' and Rs.50,000/- under he head 'future pain and sufferings'. 33. The claimant-injured is also deprived of all comforts and amenities because of the injury sustained by him, thus, is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 34. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. Thus, the insurer is to be saddled with liability. 35. Viewed thus, claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,500/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- = Rs.2,62,500/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 36. Having glance of the above discussions, the claim petition is granted and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove, and the appeal is allowed. 22. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 23. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.