JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of one award, hence are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 19.6.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MAC Petition No.5-S/2 of 2010, titled Sh. Ram Parkash versus Sh. Rajinder Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,70,000/- alongwith costs assessed at Rs.5000/-, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was saddled with the liability, with direction to deposit the amount within two months, in default had to satisfy the amount with simple interest @ 9% from the date of claim petition, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeals. 3. Claimants being the victims of a vehicular accident invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for the grant of compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, which was resisted by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. 1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the respondent No.2. OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 2 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence, if so, with what effect? OPR-3. 4. Whether the petitioner was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, if so, with what effect? OPR-3. 5. Relief. 4. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimant has proved that the respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, namely, Mohan Lal has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently in which the claimant sustained the injuries and became permanently disabled to the extent of 40%. The findings on issue No. 1 are not in dispute are accordingly upheld. 5. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4. Issues No. 3 and 4. 6. It was for the appellant/insurer to plead and prove both the issues, has not led any evidence, thus failed to discharge the onus. It is also apt to record herein that the learned counsel for the insurer has not seriously contested issue No.4. Issues No. 3 and 4. 6. It was for the appellant/insurer to plead and prove both the issues, has not led any evidence, thus failed to discharge the onus. It is also apt to record herein that the learned counsel for the insurer has not seriously contested issue No.4. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion from paras 26 to 28 of the impugned award, needs no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned on these issues by the Tribunal, are upheld. Issue No.2. 7. Admittedly, the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident, FIR Ext. PW3/A was lodged and he was taken to IGMC Shimla where he remained under treatment for a pretty long time, was operated, discharged and had to undergo follow up for long period. The Tribunal has reproduced the statements of PW4 Dr. Ravinder Mokta and PW5 Dr. L.R. Verma in the impugned award. Thus, I deem it proper not to reproduce the same in this judgment. Dr. Ravinder Mokta (PW4) has stated that the claimant has sustained the permanent disability to the extent of 40% in terms of disability certificate Ext. PW4/A. 8. The question is-whether the compensation has been rightly assessed by the Tribunal?. 9. It is beaten law of land that the compensation is to be awarded in an injury case under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads by making guess work. 10. 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. 11. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 12. 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. 11. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 12. The Apex Court in its latest decision in Jakir Hussein vs. Sabir and others, (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 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. ………. ………………………… 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.” 13. The disability has affected his earning capacity in toto for one year and it has also affected his earning capacity to the extent of 50% for ever. The Tribunal has held the injured as skilled labourer, earning Rs.5000/- per month at that time. It appears that the Tribunal has fallen in an error. At the relevant point of time, at best, a labourer would have been earning Rs.4000/- per month while making a guess work. The claimant has suffered 40-50% disability and it can safely be held that the claimant has lost source of income to the tune of Rs.2000/- per month, was 25 years of age, the multiplier applicable is “15”. 14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2000x12x15= Rs.3,60,000/-, under the head “loss of future income.” 15. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.75000/- on account of cost of medical treatment past and prospective, Rs.5,000/- on account of travel expenses, Rs.20,000/- on account of attendant charges for six months and Rs.10,000/- on account of physical pain and shock. 16. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in not awarding compensation for loss of amenities of life. Thus, the claimant also held entitled to Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities of life. 17. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/-+Rs.75000/- +Rs.5000/-+Rs.20,000/ +Rs.10,000/- + Rs.50,000/- = Total Rs.5,20,000/-., with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of impugned award on the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- and from the date of claim petition on the amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. 18. 17. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/-+Rs.75000/- +Rs.5000/-+Rs.20,000/ +Rs.10,000/- + Rs.50,000/- = Total Rs.5,20,000/-., with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of impugned award on the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- and from the date of claim petition on the amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. 18. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount alongwith interest @ 7.5% as indicated hereinabove, within eight weeks from today in the Registry, if not already deposited. The Registry, on deposit, is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account, or by depositing the same in his bank account, after proper verification. Excess amount, if any be release in favour of the appellant-insurer through payees cheque account. 19. Viewed thus, impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove and the appeals are disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any. 20. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.