JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.3.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MAC Petition No.03 of 2010, titled Sanjay Kumar versus H.R. T.C. and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,45,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and HRTC was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Claimant has not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained the finality, so far as it relates to him. 3. The H.R.T.C. has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Claimant being the victim of a vehicular accident, filed claim petition before the tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on account of the injuries suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of HRTC Bus driver, namely, Sukh Dev, while driving HRTC Bus No. HP-36-A-7505 at Kaloor, was taken to hospital at Nadaun and thereafter shifted on the same day to Dayanand Medical College hospital Ludhiana where he remained admitted till 21.10.2009. 5. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. 1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries due to use/rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-36-A-7505 by its driver-respondent No. 3 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPRs. 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his act and conduct? OPRs. 5 Relief. 6. Claimants have examined the witnesses and the Tribunal, after scanning the evidence oral as well as documentary, held that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The driver has not questioned the said findings. Thus, the appellant cannot question the same. However, I have gone through the pleadings and evidence. FIR Ext. PW1/A does disclose that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. The driver has not questioned the said findings. Thus, the appellant cannot question the same. However, I have gone through the pleadings and evidence. FIR Ext. PW1/A does disclose that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 7. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 and 4. It was for the appellant to lead evidence, has not led any evidence. Thus, failed to discharge the onus. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paras 17 and 18 of the impugned award and decided the issues against the appellant, needs no interference. Issue No.2. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 11. 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 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. 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.” 12. The injured was 27 years of age at the time of accident, was admitted in the hospital from 23.8.2009 to 21.10.2009. 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.” 12. The injured was 27 years of age at the time of accident, was admitted in the hospital from 23.8.2009 to 21.10.2009. The claimant examined PW3 Dr. R.K. Kaushal who is Head of neurosurgery department in DMC Hospital Ludhiana, who deposed that the injured was deeply comatosed. C.T. Scan of his head was done which showed fluid on left side of brain. He was operated twice. Bone flap was placed on the head on 29.9.2009 and after treatment he was discharged on 21.10.2009. He has further stated that the claimant was coming on for regular follow up after every 4-6 weeks. He is having difficulty in speaking and walking. Discharge summary Ext. PW3/A and other certificates Ext. PW3/B and Ext. PW3/C do disclose that the claimant has become permanently disabled and has lost charm of his life. The bill Ext. PW3/D do disclose that the claimant had spent Rs.1,94,428/- on his treatment in DMC Ludhiana. The tribunal has rightly made discussion in paras 10 to 15 of the impugned award and has given the details how the claimant is entitled to compensation. 13. It is apt to record herein that the learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to indicate how the Tribunal has fallen in an error in making assessment. In fact he has not disputed the impugned award to that effect. 14. The entire evidence on the record do disclose that the claimant has to suffer forever life. The injuries have shattered his physical frame and he has lost amenities of life. 15. I have gone through the impugned award. The amount awarded is adequate needs no interference. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 17. The HRTC-appellant is directed to deposit the amount alongwith interest, as awarded by the Tribunal, within eight weeks from today in the Registry, if not 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. 18. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.