JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 3.7.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MACT No. 44-S/2 of 2008, titled Shri Rajinder Singh versus Kripal Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.9,14,400/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insured-owner was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award thus; I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 3. Owner Kripal Singh, by the medium of FAO No. 423 of 2012 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with the liability and claimant Rajinder Singh, by the medium of FAO No. 400 of 2012, has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation, on the grounds taken in their memo of appeals. 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. 30 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on account of the injuries with permanent disability suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 19.6.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of driver, namely Sat Pal, while driving vehicle No. HP-36-A-0218. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. 1. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-36-A-0218 by the respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner has a cause of action? OPP. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-3. 6. Whether the vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and route permit etc. If so, its effect? OPR-3. 7. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 5. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-3. 6. Whether the vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and route permit etc. If so, its effect? OPR-3. 7. Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger? OPR-3. 8. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition by his act and conduct? OPR-3. 9. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? OPR-3. 10. Relief. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence oral as well as documentary, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant and against the driver and owner. Driver has not questioned the said findings, are accordingly upheld. 6. The only dispute in these appeals is with respect to issues No. 5 and 6 and partly on issue No. 2. Issue No.5. 7. The Tribunal in para 15 of the impugned award has held that the insurer has proved that the licence Ex.RW1/A was not in the name of respondent No. 2 but renewal was in his name and accordingly, held that respondent No. 2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that the owner has committed willful breach. It is apt to reproduce para 15 of the impugned award herein. “15. In this case, the insurance company has successfully proved that no licence Ext. RW1/A with original number from RLA Dehradun has been issued in the name of respondent No.2. The insurance company through its investigator also inquired about the insurance of the licence and it was found that the licence though validly renewed, but the original licence never exists in the name of respondent No.2 The Tribunal is also satisfied that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, issue No. 5 is decided in favour of respondent No. 3 and against respondent No. 1 and 2.” [emphasis added] 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are factually incorrect for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 9. Driving licence Ext. RW1/A is on the record which does disclose that the renewal was made in the name of respondent No.2. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are factually incorrect for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 9. Driving licence Ext. RW1/A is on the record which does disclose that the renewal was made in the name of respondent No.2. It is not the case of the insurer that the owner was knowing that the driving licence was not issued in the name of respondent No. 2 and despite that he had engaged respondent No.2 as driver. In order to seek exoneration and discharge, the insurer has to plead and prove that the insurer has committed willful breach in terms of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 . It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment herein: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149 (2) of the Act.” 10. It would also be profitable to reproduce para 10 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217 , herein: “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 11. There is not an iota of evidence to the effect that the owner has committed willful breach. Having said so, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are set aside and it is held that the renewal was made in the name of respondent No.2 thus, it cannot be said that he was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that the owner has committed willful breach. Issue No.6. 12. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the vehicle was being plied without any route permit and fitness certificate, has not led any evidence, thus failed to discharge the onus. However, I have gone through the findings recorded and the documents placed on record which do disclose that the vehicle was being plied with all requisite documents/ certificates. Accordingly, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 6 are set aside. Issues No. 3, 4 and 7 to 9. 13. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus, has failed to discharge. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. 14. The factum of insurance is not dispute, Thus, the insurer has to satisfy the award. FAO No. 400 of 2012. Issue No.2. 15. The question is-whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. 13. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus, has failed to discharge. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. 14. The factum of insurance is not dispute, Thus, the insurer has to satisfy the award. FAO No. 400 of 2012. Issue No.2. 15. The question is-whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 16. The appellant became victim of vehicular accident, has suffered 100% disability which is not in dispute. Tribunal has rightly given the details in para 18 of the impugned award how the victim has suffered the disability. But the Tribunal has not awarded compensation for treatment during which he remained admitted in the hospital. Admittedly, the injured was admitted in the hospital right from the date of accident till discharge and has placed on record medical bills Mark 1 to Mark 133 and Ext. P1 to P33 but Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under this head. The Total amount on medical treatment comes to Rs.2,28,176/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.2,00,000/-, for future treatment, Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of expectation and Rs.20,000/- for attendant charges. Tribunal has also rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- on account of travelling expenses. 17. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the inured as Rs.3200/- per month. The injured was 29 years of age at the time accident and the multiplier applicable is “16” in view of the 2nd Schedule attached to the Act, read with 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 claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3200x12x16 = Rs.6,14,400/-. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the injured but wrongly concluded it to the tune of Rs.5,04,400/-. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- on account of boarding and lodging at Chandigarh Rs.10,000/- on account of physiotherapist charges and Rs.50,000/- on account of mental shock for physical sufferings but has fallen in an error in not awarding compensation under the head pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life. 18. 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. 19. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 21. 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. 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.” 22. Thus, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head “pain and sufferings” and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head “loss of amenities of life”. 23. Thus, in all the claimant is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6,14,400/- +Rs.2,28,176/- + Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-, + Rs.20,000/- +Rs.15,000/- +Rs.15,000/- +Rs.10,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- =Rs. 14,52,576/-. 24. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, compensation is enhanced and impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 25. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today in the Registry alongwith interest @ 7.5%, payable for all heads, except for future income, from the date of the claim petition and under the head ‘loss of earning/future income’, it is payable from the date of impugned award. 26. 25. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today in the Registry alongwith interest @ 7.5%, payable for all heads, except for future income, from the date of the claim petition and under the head ‘loss of earning/future income’, it is payable from the date of impugned award. 26. 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. 27. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.