JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant-claimant-injured has called in question award, dated 17th March, 2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 219/2005 (112S/2003), titled as Umed Singh versus Sh. Sohan Singh and others, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The appellant-claimant-injured filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of the vehicular accident which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Tilak Raj, while driving truck bearing registration No. HP-32-0670, rashly and negligently, on 13th April, 2002, at about 4.00 P.M., at place Kulah, near Swarghat. 3. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 2nd August, 2005: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HP-32-0670 on 13-4-2002 at place Kulah near Swarghat being driven by respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 4. Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident, if so its effect? OPR-3 5. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Relief.” 5. The appellant-claimant-injured has examined six witnesses in support of his claim and himself appeared in the witness box as PW4. The insurer has examined two witness in support of its defence. 6. It is apt to record herein that the owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal vide order, dated 13th July, 2009. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, dismissed the claim petition in terms of the impugned award. Hence, the appeal. Issue No. 1: 8. 6. It is apt to record herein that the owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal vide order, dated 13th July, 2009. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, dismissed the claim petition in terms of the impugned award. Hence, the appeal. Issue No. 1: 8. The Tribunal, while making discussions in paras 11 to 18 of the impugned award, held that the claimant-injured has proved that the accident was caused by the driver, namely Shri Tilak Raj, while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the relevant point of time, in which claimant-injured sustained injuries. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the said findings. The appellant-claimant-injured has also not questioned the same. 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 issue No. 4 at the first instance. Issue No. 4: 10. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant-claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident. 11. The appellant-claimant-injured has specifically pleaded in paras 10 and 24 of the claim petition that he was travelling in the offending vehicle as cleaner of the vehicle, which factum is admitted by the owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle in their respective replies. Thus, there was no dispute about the factum of the appellant-claimant-injured being employed as cleaner with the offending vehicle. Therefore, there was no need to frame the issue relating to the said fact in terms of the mandate of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”). 12. However, the insurer has taken a specific plea in its reply that the appellant-claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident. Thus, it was for the insurer to discharge the onus. 13. The insurer has examined Shri Roshan Lal, Senior Assistant from the office of RLA, Gohar, as RW1, who has specifically stated that the offending vehicle was registered as 'light goods vehicle' and conductor was permitted to travel with the driver in the offending vehicle. 14. Thus, it was for the insurer to discharge the onus. 13. The insurer has examined Shri Roshan Lal, Senior Assistant from the office of RLA, Gohar, as RW1, who has specifically stated that the offending vehicle was registered as 'light goods vehicle' and conductor was permitted to travel with the driver in the offending vehicle. 14. Even otherwise, as per the registration certificate, Mark R-1, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is 2+1', thus, the risk of the appellant-claimant-injured, being the cleaner, was covered, cannot be said to be gratuitous passenger. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in deciding issue No. 4 by holding that the appellant-claimant-injured was a gratuitous passenger. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are set aside and it is held that the appellant-claimant-injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as cleaner and not as a gratuitous passenger. Issue No. 3: 15. 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 to drive the same, though has examined Shri Chet Singh Thakur, Clerk from the office of RLA (Motors), Rural Shimla, as RW-2, but has failed to do so. Even otherwise, the driving licence is on the record as Mark R-2, the perusal of which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Accordingly, issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle and against the insurer. Issue No. 5: 16. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, thus, the owner-insured has committed a willful breach, has failed to do so, as discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the insurer. Issue No. 2: 17. The Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation, to which the appellant-claimant-injured is entitled to. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured remained admitted in Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur with effect from 13th April, 2002 to 17th April, 2002 and thereafter at IGMC, Shimla, with effect from 9th May, 2002 to 17th May, 2002. 18. The Tribunal has not assessed the amount of compensation, to which the appellant-claimant-injured is entitled to. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured remained admitted in Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur with effect from 13th April, 2002 to 17th April, 2002 and thereafter at IGMC, Shimla, with effect from 9th May, 2002 to 17th May, 2002. 18. 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. 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 claimant-injured has pleaded that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as cleaner of the offending vehicle. However, by guess work, it can safely be held that he would have been earning not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. 22. The disability certificate is on the record as Ext. PW3/A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered 45% permanent disability. Thus, it can be safely held that the claimant-injured has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month. 23. The age of the claimant-injured was 24 years at the time of the accident, which is not in dispute. Thus, the multiplier of 15' is to be applied in view of the second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short “MV Act”) 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. 24. Having said so, the claimant-injured has lost source of income to the tune of Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/-. 25. The claimant-injured has placed on record the cash memos/medical bills, Mark 1 to 36, amounting to Rs.13,909.64/-. 24. Having said so, the claimant-injured has lost source of income to the tune of Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/-. 25. The claimant-injured has placed on record the cash memos/medical bills, Mark 1 to 36, amounting to Rs.13,909.64/-. Thus, he is held entitled to Rs.13,910/- under the head 'medical expenses'. 26. The claimant-injured has also placed on record taxi bills/bus tickets, Ext. PW-1/A, Ext. PW1/-B, Mark 37 to 43 to the tune of Rs.35,443/-, thus, is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.35,500/- under the head 'transportation charges'. 27. 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. 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. 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.” 28. 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.50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 29. Having glance of the above discussions, the claimant-injured is held entitled to total compensation to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/-+ Rs.13,910/-+ Rs.35,500/-+ Rs.50,000/-+ Rs.50,000/- = Rs.4,19,410/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its realization. 30. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the insurer is saddled with liability. 31. In view of the above, the impugned award is modified, the appeal is allowed and the claim petition is granted, as indicated hereinabove. 32. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry within eight weeks. 30. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the insurer is saddled with liability. 31. In view of the above, the impugned award is modified, the appeal is allowed and the claim petition is granted, as indicated hereinabove. 32. 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 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. 33. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.