JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.9.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kullu, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 67/2006, titled Smt. Rattna Karir versus Shri Jog Dhian and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,04,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants and other respondents have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, it has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Insurer/appellant has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimant had filed claim petition for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs, as per the break-ups given in paras 21 and 24 of the claim petition, which was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the claim petitioner suffered injuries in a motor accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 while driving TATA Indica no. HP-34-9015?OPP (ii) Whether the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of respondent NO. 2 and respondent No. 4, the driver of marutia Zen car No.HP-24-7171?OPP (iii) If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP. (iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR1 and 2. (v) Whether the petition is not legally maintainable as alleged? OPR1 and 2. (vi) Whether the vehicle NO. HP-34-9015 is not insured with respondent No. 3 as alleged? OPR3. (vii) Whether the respondent NO. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ?OPR-3 (viii) Whether the petition has been filed in connivance by the petitioner and respondents no. 1 and 2, if so, its effect? OPR-3. (ix) Relief. 5. Claimant examined Sh. Chamcli Devi as PW2, Tajinder Kumar, PW3, Chander Singh, PW4, Dr. Baldev Singh PW5 and claimant herself stepped into the witness-box as PW1. 6. On the other hand, respondents examined Davinder Singh RW1, Pardeep Kumar RW2 and driver Leela Dhar also stepped into the witness-box as RW3. OPR-3. (ix) Relief. 5. Claimant examined Sh. Chamcli Devi as PW2, Tajinder Kumar, PW3, Chander Singh, PW4, Dr. Baldev Singh PW5 and claimant herself stepped into the witness-box as PW1. 6. On the other hand, respondents examined Davinder Singh RW1, Pardeep Kumar RW2 and driver Leela Dhar also stepped into the witness-box as RW3. Some documents were also placed on record, details of which are given in list of witness appended to the impugned award. 7. The Tribunal has held that the accident was caused by driver Leela Dhar while driving Tata Indica car rashly and negligently. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. There is no evidence, oral or documentary, on the file, which can be made basis for holding that the accident was outcome of contributory negligence. The Tribunal has discussed Issue No.1 in paras 14 to 28 of the impugned award. The findings returned are perfectly correct, need no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. In view of the findings returned on issue No.1, findings returned on Issue No. 2 are also upheld. 10. Before I deal with issue No. 3, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 4 to 8 at the first instance. 11. It was for respondents No.1 and 2 in the claim petition to discharge onus on these issues, failed to do so. Thus, findings returned on these issues are to be upheld. 12. Respondents have not led any evidence to prove whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is not legally maintainable. The Tribunal has rightly determined all these issues in favour of the claimants. 13. It is apt to record herein that the law on motor accidents claims has gone through a sea change. Now copy of FIR or police report can be treated as claim petition, in terms of the mandate of Sections 158 (6) and 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”. 14. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 4 and 5 are upheld. Issue No.6. 15. The factum of insurance is not in dispute which has not been questioned before this Court. However, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurer, i.e, appellant herein. 14. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 4 and 5 are upheld. Issue No.6. 15. The factum of insurance is not in dispute which has not been questioned before this Court. However, the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurer, i.e, appellant herein. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 6 are upheld. Issue No.7. 16. It was for respondent No. 3 to discharge the onus, has not led any evidence that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The copy of driving licence is on the record as Ext. RW-3/B which do disclose that the driver was competent to driver the offending vehicle. The findings returned on issue No. 8 are misconceived. However, respondent No. 3 has not led any evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 7 and 8 are upheld. Issue No.3. 17. The claimant has suffered and has to suffer throughout his life being spine injuries; who is not in a position to sit. The injury is permanent in nature. The Tribunal has made discussion on issue No. 3 right from paras 30 to 46 of the impugned award. The discussion made is perfectly right. Only the Tribunal has fallen in an error in applying the multiplier and assessing the income of the injured. 18. In the injury cases, the compensation has to be awarded under two heads “pecuniary damages” and “non-pecuniary damages.” 19. The Apex Court in case titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755 , had discussed all aspects and laid down guidelines how a guess work is to be made and how compensation is to be awarded under various heads. It is apt to reproduce paras 9 to 14 of the judgment hereinbelow: “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. In the case Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All ER 563, it was said: "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his "lost years", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected "years of survival". You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well-nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money." 12. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 13. This Court in the case of C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 , in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed (at p. 380): "In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable." 14. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said :- "Non-pecuniary loss : the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases." 20. The said judgment was also discussed by the Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, while granting compensation in such a case. It is apt to reproduce para-7 of the judgment hereinbelow: “7. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases - and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 21. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787 also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. The Apex Court in case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787 also laid down guidelines for granting compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 & 9 of the judgment hereinbelow: “8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 9. The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 22. The Apex Court in case titled as Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771 also discussed the entire law and laid down the guidelines how to grant compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 & 18 of the judgment hereinbelow: “16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 , this Court considered large number of precedents and laid down the following propositions: “The provision of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: “Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. v) (Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.” 17. …………………………. 18. …………………………. 18. In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses.” 23. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- under the head “medical expenses”, Rs.50,000/- for “future treatment”, Rs.10,000/- under the head “attendant charges” Rs.36,000/- under the head “Attendant charges for one year period”, Rs.54,000/- under the head “Taxi/transportation charges” and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head “Pain and suffering. However the Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding compensation under the head “Loss of future income. Prima facie, it can be said that the monthly income of a house wife would not be less than Rs.4000/-. Thus, it can be safely said that she has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2000/- per month. The Tribunal has also fallen in an error in applying multiplier of “11”. The age of the injured given in the claim petition is “50” years, in FIR the age is given as “51” years and in other documents the age is given as 51 years. Accordingly the deceased is held to be 51 years of age at the time of the accident. Thus, the multiplier applicable is “9” as per the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, for short the Act read with the ratio laid down in 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. Accordingly, multiplier of “9” is applied instead of “11”. 24. Thus the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2000x12x9. Total Rs. 2,16,000/-. 25. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation as follows: 1 “Loss of future income” Rs. Accordingly, multiplier of “9” is applied instead of “11”. 24. Thus the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2000x12x9. Total Rs. 2,16,000/-. 25. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation as follows: 1 “Loss of future income” Rs. 2,16,000/- 2 “Medical expenses.” Rs. 1,70,000/- 3 “Future treatment” Rs. 50,000/- 4 “Attendant charges” Rs. 10,000/- 5 “Attendant charges” Rs. 36,000/- 6 “Attendant charges for one year period” Rs. 54,000/- 7 “Taxi/Transportation charges” Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 6,36,000/- 26. The interest was to be awarded under all heads except under the head “future income” from the date of claim petition. Thus interest @ 7.5% is payable for all heads except for “future income”, from the date of the claim petition, and for future income it is payable from the date of the award. 27. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove. 28. The Registry to release the awarded amount, in favour of the claimant, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in his bank account, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award and excess amount, if any, be released to the appellant, through payees, cheque account. 29. The appeal stands disposed of. Send down the records forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.