JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 11th January, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2) Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C.P No. 74-K/2005, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant and against the respondents, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The claimant has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the compensation amount awarded is inadequate? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 4. Claimant became victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by driver, namely, Raman Biswas, while driving vehicle-Army Tractor bearing registration No. 04D-160134 H (Army Vehicle), rashly and negligently, sustained injuries and rendered him permanently disabled to the extent of 25%. 5. The Tribunal has made discussion in para-2 of the impugned award and recorded that Dr. Gurdarshan Gupta (PW-1) appeared in the witness box and proved the disability certificate Ex. PW-1/A. It is apt to reproduce the statement of the said doctor herein:- “PW-1- Statement of Dr. Durdarshan Gupta, Orthopedic Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Kangra, Stated that I am posted as Orthopedic Surgeon in Civil Hospital Kangra. On dated 25.08.2007, I alongwith other members of Medical Board examined Sumit Attri, S/o Sh. Vijay Attri, R/o Pind Ghiani, Tehsil Barsar. District Hamirpur and we found him to be permanently disable to the tune of 25% on account of fracture shaft femur right with fracture left clavicle with sasiaheal stiff knee with limb length discrepancy. We issued him disability certificate No. 1526 dated 28.08.2007. The disability is likely to affect his mobility. The injuries caused have been caused by road side accident. I have seen disability certificate Ext. PW-1/A, which bears my signature and signature of other members of Medical Board. X X X BY respondent No. 1. NIL _________Opportunity granted. X X X BY respondent No. 2. It is correct that these injuries could be caused by fall on the hard surface. I have seen disability certificate Ext. PW-1/A, which bears my signature and signature of other members of Medical Board. X X X BY respondent No. 1. NIL _________Opportunity granted. X X X BY respondent No. 2. It is correct that these injuries could be caused by fall on the hard surface. I have not given any treatment to the injured. The percentage of disability was assured after examining the patient, his medical record. I have seen the treatment record of patient today in the Court, vide which Board has given the Ext. PW-1/A. It is wrong to suggest that the Medical Officer who examined and treated the patient in the better person to give the disability certificate. It is also wrong that the treating doctor is only competent to issue the disability certificate. It is also wrong that the disability 25% arrived at is wrong.” 6. The claimant has also examined Dr. Dinesh Mehta (PW-2), who has deposed that the injuries suffered by the claimant were grievous in nature. 7. The compensation is to be awarded in an injury case under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads by making guess work, as held by 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 . 8. The Apex Court in case titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085 in para-7 of the judgment has held as under: “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. 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.” 9. 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 in injury cases. 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.” 10. 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.” 10. 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. 11. The award amount appears to be meager in view of the fact that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25%, which has shattered his physical frame. 12. Admittedly, the claimant was 22 years of age at the time of accident. Nowadays, even a labourer is not earning less than Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, by guess work, it can safely be held that he would have been earning not less than Rs.6,000/- per month. Keeping in view the percentage of the disability, it can safely be held that it has affected earning capacity of the claimant to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month. 13. The multiplier of ‘15’ is applicable in this case, in view of the 2nd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 , upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to the sum of Rs. 1500/- x 12 = Rs.18,000 x 15 = Rs.2,70,000/- (rupees two lacs seventy thousands only) under the head ‘loss of earning’. 14. The claimant is also held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each, under the heads ‘pain and sufferings’ and ‘loss of amenities of life’. 15. The Tribunal has also held that the claimant is not in a position to get better match, thus has affected his matrimonial status/life. Exercising guess work, claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘loss of marriage prospectus’. 16. 15. The Tribunal has also held that the claimant is not in a position to get better match, thus has affected his matrimonial status/life. Exercising guess work, claimant is held entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the head ‘loss of marriage prospectus’. 16. The Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘medical expenses’, is accordingly maintained. 17. Having said so, it is held that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.50,000/- total amounting to Rs. 6,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned award till its realization. 18. The amount of compensation is enhanced. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount alongwith interest, within a period of twelve weeks from today before the Registry. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in his account. 19. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 20. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.