JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 1st January, 2014, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Mandi, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 29/2011, titled as Kishori Lal versus Tulsi Ram and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,49,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant injured and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The respondents in the claim petition, i.e. the insurer, owner insured and driver of the offending vehicle, have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant injured has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is adequate? The answer is in negative for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 5. The claimant injured invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. twenty seven lacs, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Naresh Kumar, while driving Alto Car (taxi), bearing registration No. HP01K2192, rashly and negligently, on 25th September, 2010, at about 3.45 P.M. at place Nouna, Balichowki, District Mandi, in which the claimant injured sustained injuries. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 13th December, 2011: “1. Whether on 25.9.2010 respondent No. 2 was driving the Alto Car bearing No. HP01K2192 in a rash and negligent manner causing grievous injuries to the petitioner, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle was driven without valid and effective R.C., route permit and fitness certificate? If so its effect? OPR3 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR3 5. Relief.” 7. OPP 3. Whether the vehicle was driven without valid and effective R.C., route permit and fitness certificate? If so its effect? OPR3 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR3 5. Relief.” 7. The claimant-injured examined five witnesses and has himself appeared in the witness box as PW1 in support of his claim. The driver and owner-insured of the offending vehicle also appeared in the witness box as RW1 and RW2, respectively. The insurer has not led any evidence in support of its defence. Issue No. 1: 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant-injured has proved that he became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver of the offending vehicle. The said findings have not been questioned by the owner-insured, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, 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 and 4. Issues No. 3 and 4: 10. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the same was being driven without valid documents, has not led any evidence. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion in para 11 of the impugned award. Even, the same have not been questioned by the insurer. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No. 3 and 4 are also upheld. Issue No. 2: 11. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured was operated upon for spine (D12) injury at PGI Chandigarh and remained admitted in various hospitals for a pretty long time, as is evident from the documentary evidence on the file. The disability certificate is also on the record as Ext. PW4/A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered 100% permanent disability, due to which he has been totally paralyzed, incapacitated, disabled and is bed ridden. 12. It is beaten law of land that in an injury case, the compensation is to be awarded under pecuniary and non pecuniary heads by making guess work. 13. PW4/A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered 100% permanent disability, due to which he has been totally paralyzed, incapacitated, disabled and is bed ridden. 12. It is beaten law of land that in an injury case, the compensation is to be awarded under pecuniary and non pecuniary heads by making guess work. 13. My this view is fortified by the judgments made by the Apex Court in the cases titled as 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, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, and Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771. 14. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 15. The claimant-injured has pleaded that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month being an agriculturist and horticulturist. The Tribunal, after making the guess work, has assessed his monthly income to be Rs. 3600/- per month, which is not legally and factually correct. There are pleadings and evidence on the file, which have remained unrebutted, that the claimant injured was having land, which is proved by the extract of jamabandi, Ext. PW1/G. It stands also proved that he was an agriculturist and horticulturist by profession. Thus, it can be safely held that he was earning not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month. 16. Because of the 100% disability suffered by the claimant injured, he is not in a position to earn anything. The claimant injured has examined Dr. Sandeep Vaidya as PW4, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which has issued the disability certificate. It is apt to reproduce the statement of Dr. Sandeep Vaidya (PW4) herein: “Stated that I am posted as M.O. at ZH Mandi since January, 2006. I was a member of Medical Board constituted for the purpose of determination of disability. One Sh. Kishori Lal was examined by the board on 2582012 and after examination issued a permanent disability certificate of 100% in relation to dorsal spine. The certificate is Ex. PW4/A which is correct as per record. These injuries mentioned in Ex. PW4/A are possible in motor vehicular accident. I have also put my signature in Ex. One Sh. Kishori Lal was examined by the board on 2582012 and after examination issued a permanent disability certificate of 100% in relation to dorsal spine. The certificate is Ex. PW4/A which is correct as per record. These injuries mentioned in Ex. PW4/A are possible in motor vehicular accident. I have also put my signature in Ex. PW4/A which is in red circle. xxx By Sh. B.C. Singh Adv. xxx Nil. Opportunity given. xxx by Sh. Dikan Rana Adv. xxx The injuries are not curable now.” 17. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant-injured has lost total income to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 18. The age of the claimant-injured was 32 years at the time of the accident, which is not in dispute. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 17', which is not just and appropriate. Multiplier of 15' was to be applied in view of the second Schedule appended with the MV Act read with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error. 19. Having said so, the claimant-injured has lost source of income to the tune of Rs. 5,000/x 12 x 15 = Rs. 9,00,000/-. 20. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 36,000/- under the head 'attendant charges' @ Rs. 2,000/- per month for a period of eighteen months only. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the claimant-injured would have been requiring the services of an attendant for a period of eighteen months for the reason that the doctor, while appearing in the witness box as PW4, has specifically stated in his cross-examination that the injuries suffered by the claimant-injured are not curable. Meaning thereby, he will require the services of an attendant throughout his life and as on today or at the time of the accident, even the minimum wages for engaging the services of an attendant are not less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to the attendant charges to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 5,40,000/- 21. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to the attendant charges to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs. 5,40,000/- 21. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,25,147/- for the medical expenses incurred, while taking note of the memo, receipts and the bills, in para 21 of the impugned award, but, it has fallen in an error in not granting compensation for future treatment, which would not have been less than Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,147/- under the head 'medical expenses past and future'. 22. The amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- awarded under the head 'special diet' and Rs. 28,194/- under the head 'transportation charges' is maintained. 23. The Tribunal has also committed a legal mistake in awarding compensation under the head 'pain and sufferings' to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. 24. The Apex Court in its latest decision in the case titled as Jakir Hussein versus 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 entire life etc. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 18 of the judgment herein: “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. 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. 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.” 25. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the judgment (supra), I am of the considered view that the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 26. The claimant-injured will require wheel chair due to the said injury, thus, I deem it proper to award Rs. 30,000/- under the head 'wheel chair'. 27. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimant-injured is held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- + Rs. 5,40,000/- + Rs. 2,25,147/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 28,194/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 30,000/- under the head 'wheel chair'. 27. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimant-injured is held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- + Rs. 5,40,000/- + Rs. 2,25,147/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs. 28,194/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 30,000/- = Rs. 20,28,341/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization. 28. In view of the above, the amount of compensation is enhanced, impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is allowed. 29. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the claimant injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 30. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.