JUDGMENT : Both the appeal and the cross objection are being disposed of by a common judgment since the both arise out of the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura dated 03.05.2012 in Case No. T.S(MAC) 41 of 2011 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.21,60,070/- in favour of the claimant under the following heads: (i) Cost of medicines = Rs. 2,69,832/- (ii) Cost of attendant = Rs. 16,350/- (iii) Cost of air fare & subsequent treatment = Rs. 32,210/- (iv) Consultation fees = Rs. 4,950/- (v) Loss of income = Rs.16,51,728/- (vi) Conveyance allowance = Rs. 20,000/- (vii) Incidental cost = Rs. 15,000/- (viii)Pain & sufferings = Rs. 1,00,000/- (ix) Future expenses = Rs. 50,000/- Total : Rs.21,60,070/- Both, the claimant and the insurance company have challenged the award. The claimant claims more amount whereas according to the insurance company the amount awarded is already excessive. 2. The claimant states that he was working as a Sub-Contractor under the Project Manager of Rimky Construction. According to the claimant he also had some landed property and his total income both from work of Sub-Contractor and property was Rs.10,588/-. The learned Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.10,588/- as per the certificate issued by the Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Bishalgarh Revenue Circle and held that the in injury in question had caused 100% loss of income and thereby calculated the future loss of income. The learned Court below has also taken into consideration lot of its personal knowledge while awarding the income. At two distinct stages in the award it is stated that the Tribunal has observed the condition of the claimant-injured when he appeared in the witness box and keeping that into consideration he has assessed the loss of income at 100%. I have perused the order sheet dated 3rd April, 2012 the date on which the petitioner submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and on which he was cross-examined. The order sheet does not reflect that the Judge had made note of the visual observations made by him. In case any Judge wants to rely upon some observations which he may have made during the course of trial, it is the duty of the Judge to note down these observations on the file. The Judge may or may not finally decide the case for various reasons. In case any Judge wants to rely upon some observations which he may have made during the course of trial, it is the duty of the Judge to note down these observations on the file. The Judge may or may not finally decide the case for various reasons. He may be transferred, he may be promoted, he may be terminated from service, he may die. Therefore, if anything which the Judge has visually observed, which he feels is relevant to the case must be noted down and this should be noted down orally in the presence of the counsel so that the counsel can raise an objection to the observation being made. 3. Another important factor is that normally a Judge should not become a witness for any party. In case the Judge become the witness or gets so involved in the case that he is behaving in a partisan manner then he ceases to be a Judge and he should recuse from the case. In this case, in the entire file I do not find any observations made by the Judge with regard to the physical condition of the claimant and therefore, I am clearly of the view that the learned Tribunal gravely erred at the time of final arguments in making general observations that he had observed the general condition of the claimant and found that he is incapable of earning. 4. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was not a doctor. He is not an expert witness. Claimant’s who come to Court may feign disability. There was a disability certificate on record. The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vrs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 has clearly held that in case any party wants to prove that its income has reduced drastically by the injury suffered in an accident it must prove not only the disability certificate but also examine through doctor who will prove what work the claimant can do and what work the claimant cannot do. The opposite party has a right to cross-examine this doctor. Nothing of this sought was done in the present case. 5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The opposite party has a right to cross-examine this doctor. Nothing of this sought was done in the present case. 5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. 6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few. 7. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent: “Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.” 8. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 AllER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: “Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good.” 9. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. 10. In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held: “Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given.” 11. In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus: “To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment.” 12. In Phillips versus Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: “You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered.” Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases “should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure”. The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to “hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing”, should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. 13. Mc Gregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: “The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. 13. Mc Gregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: “The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.” 14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held: “The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.” 15. In R.D. Hattangadi versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus: “Broadly speaking, while fixing the 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 are 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 as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they shall include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the 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, un or sit; (iii) damages for 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.” 16. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been inured, 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. Applying the aforesaid principles, I now proceed to assess the compensation under different heads: 18. First coming to the income of the claimant. In his examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit the claimant only made a bald assertion which reads as follows: “(9) That I am working Sub-Contractor business (Govt. Supplier & Contractor) under the Project Manager of Rimky Construction by profession and I have some land and property and from all sources I can earn of Rs.10,588/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Eight) only per month. Regarding my income I have obtain income certificate from Bishalgarh SDM Office Vide No.1276 F.9(7)/DCM/BLG/REV/08,dt.20/01/2012. ****” Other than this there is not an iota of evidence on record to show what is the income of the claimant. As far as the certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Bishalgarh is concerned I fail to understand how the Deputy Collector and Magistrate who is a revenue officer can issue a certificate with regard to the income of a person who claims to be working as Sub-Contractor (Govt. As far as the certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Bishalgarh is concerned I fail to understand how the Deputy Collector and Magistrate who is a revenue officer can issue a certificate with regard to the income of a person who claims to be working as Sub-Contractor (Govt. Supplier & Contractor) under the Project Manager of Rimky Construction. Therefore, the petitioner was not directly employed as a Sub-Contractor with the Government. He was at best a Sub-Contractor working under the Project Manager of Rimky Construction. Therefore, it was essential to summon the Project Manager or another officer from Rimky Construction to prove what was the amount paid to the petitioner by them for his work done as sub-contractor. No such evidence was led. 19. In Tripura time and again I am coming across cases where Revenue Authorities such as SDMs are issuing certificates of income of the claimants. In fact in one case a Member of the Legislative Assembly had issued such a certificate. These persons have no right or authority to issue such certificates. A Revenue Authority may assess the agricultural income on the basis of the land held by a party and the annual average income from that type of land, but I fail to understand how a SDM can assess the income of some other person. How will the SDM assess the income of a person running a tea shop outside the High Court? How will the SDM assess the income of a person running an auto rickshaw? If the SDM is to record evidence to issue the certificate then that evidence is better led before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal than before the SDM. 20. In MAC Appeal No.02 of 2010 ( Shri Tarun Kumar Reang Vrs. Sri Rakesh Debnath and others) decided on 17th June, 2015 this Court while dealing with regard to such a certificate has held as follows: “10. I have highlighted all these pointes to emphasize the fact that in a Court of law, even before a Tribunal no reliance can be placed on such a certificate because such certificate has no statutory backing to it. I have highlighted all these pointes to emphasize the fact that in a Court of law, even before a Tribunal no reliance can be placed on such a certificate because such certificate has no statutory backing to it. Such a certificate is not issued to under any authority of law and as such no Court should blindly follow the certificate and the income must be assessed on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and not on the basis of such certificates.” The income certificate has been issued by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Bishalgarh on 20th January, 2012 and this certified the income of the claimant of Rs.10,588/-. In fact this would show that the income has not change at all because the certificate does not show that this is the income prior to the accident, it shows the income of 20th January, 2012. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this certificate which is not worth the paper it is written on. If I have to rely upon this certificate it would only mean that the petitioner is still earning the same amount what he was earning earlier. 21. Now let me deal with the amounts awarded under various heads. 22. The claimant remained admitted in hospital for 109 days and most of the treatment was in Kolkata and Agartala. This treatment took place in the year 2011 and the claimant would have required attendant round the clock. I assess the cost of one attendant at Rs.300/- per day, cost of two attendants at Rs.600/- per day and for 109 days the cost of attendants works out to Rs.65,400/- which is rounded off to Rs.70,000/-. 23. The petitioner has been awarded Rs.32,210/- for his air fare. The air fare tickets placed on record by the petitioner show that he has spent Rs.55,741/-. In addition thereto there may have been some expenditure for local transportation, ambulance charges etc. and therefore, I award him Rs.60,000/- under the head of air travel and transportation. 24. As far as medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,69,832/- but has not taken into consideration all the cash memos and receipt which shows that a sum of Rs.3,07,942/- was spent on his treatment. and therefore, I award him Rs.60,000/- under the head of air travel and transportation. 24. As far as medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,69,832/- but has not taken into consideration all the cash memos and receipt which shows that a sum of Rs.3,07,942/- was spent on his treatment. In addition thereto, there may be other small amounts for which vouchers could not have been produced and keeping in view the length and nature of treatment it would not be unreasonable to assess the compensation at Rs.3,15,000/- under the head of medical expenses. 25. The learned Court below has awarded consultation fees of Rs.4,950/- for 22 (twenty-two) private visit to doctor which I uphold and the petitioner is awarded Rs.5000/-. 26. The claimant shall not be entitled to any amount for incidental cost as has been awarded. There is no heading known to law known as incidental cost. 27. The main issue is with regard to the loss of income. According to the claimant he was working as a sub-contractor and he has lost total use of one leg. I have perused the medical certificate which shows that the nature of disability is deformity of right leg involving ankle and shortening. This means that the other limbs are all functional and the upper part of the leg is also ok. The disability has been assessed at 90%, but I am clearly of the view that this disability of 90% is not in relation to the entire body but only in relation to the leg. Disability of 90% to the leg cannot be translated to 100% loss of income as has been done by the trial Court. This Court has repeated held that loss of percentage of disability may not necessarily equal the loss of earning capacity. The claimant if he wants of prove high disability must examine a doctor in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra). The claimant may have to walk on crutches. He may require to aid of a stick but it cannot be said that he is totally incapable of earning any amount. The claimant may have lost virtually use of one lower limb but it cannot be said that he is totally in capable of earning. He can work with his hands. He can work with his other legs. He may require to aid of a stick but it cannot be said that he is totally incapable of earning any amount. The claimant may have lost virtually use of one lower limb but it cannot be said that he is totally in capable of earning. He can work with his hands. He can work with his other legs. He can work with his arms and he can work with his brain. The work of a subcontractor is not all physical in nature. From the record I find that the work what the petition was doing was arranging sand and bricks for purposes of construction. This sand and bricks can be arranged over telephone also or by travelling in a car from one brick kiln to the other and this bricks can then be supplied to the ultimate user of the same. The claimant was not a manual labourer. He was a sub-contractor and therefore, I am not in agreement with the learned trial Court that the loss of income is 100%. The loss of income has to be decided on the basis of the nature of the job, the nature of the work and the nature of the disability and how it will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. 28. At this stage Sri P.K. Pal, learned counsel for the claimant-cross objector insisted that I see the petitioner who is present in person. The claimant cross objector stood up. He obviously uses crutches. He also walked out of my Court with the help of crutches. A Judge is not an expert, the medical expert only can state what work the claimant-cross objector can do and what work he cannot do. However, I am clear that the claimant-cross objector who was working as sub-contractor cannot be said to have lost his earning capacity by 100%. Even if he has to walk with crutches he can do the work of contractor and therefore, in my opinion his earning capacity would not be lowered more than 40%. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant-cross objector at Rs.10,588/- on the basis of a certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Bishalgarh Revenue Circle. This Court has repeated held that such certificates are not worth the paper they are written. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant-cross objector at Rs.10,588/- on the basis of a certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Bishalgarh Revenue Circle. This Court has repeated held that such certificates are not worth the paper they are written. However, keeping in view the fact that the claimant-cross objector was a sub-contractor, his income has taken to be Rs.10,000/- per month and since the claimant-cross objector at the time of the accident was between 45 to 50 years of age, 30% is added for his future prospects and the income works out to Rs.13,000/- per month. 40% of which is Rs.5200/- per month or Rs.62,400/- per year. The relevant multiplier would be 13 and the compensation under this head works out to Rs.8,11,200/- and not Rs.16,51,728/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 29. The claimant remained in hospital for 109 days and therefore, it can be presumed that he may not have been able to work for at least 6(six) months. Since the claimant’s income has been assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month, he is also awarded Rs.60,000/- for actual loss of income. 30. As far as pain and suffering is concerned the claimant remained in hospital for 109 days. He went for treatment to various places. He has not fully recovered and therefore, he is awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. 31. The last head under which compensation has to be awarded is future discomfort and loss of amenities of life. The petitioner has become crippled. He cannot walk like a normal human being. For the rest of his life he would be walking with the support of crutches. Therefore, he is awarded Rs.1,50,000/- under this head. 32. The total compensation is, therefore, assessed at (Rs.70,000/- + 60,000/- + 3,15,000/- + 5000/- + 8,11,200/- + 60,000/- + 50,000/- + 1,50,000/-) = Rs.15,21,200/-, which is rounded off to Rs.15,22,000/-. The award is accordingly reduced from Rs.21,60,070/- to Rs.15,22,000/-. The claimant shall also be entitled to interest on the modified amount of compensation i.e. Rs.15,22,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount. The insurance company is directed to deposit the modified amount of compensation i.e. Rs.15,22,000/- along with proportionate interest thereupon in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. The insurance company is directed to deposit the modified amount of compensation i.e. Rs.15,22,000/- along with proportionate interest thereupon in the Registry of this Court within four months from today. Obviously, the insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amounts, if any, which it has already paid or deposited. 33. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the claimant-cross-objector for enhancement of compensation is dismissed. No order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith.