JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. Appellant-claimant-injured has questioned the judgment and award, dated 08.12.2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 15S/ 2 of 2008, titled as Surekha Devi versus Mangal Singh and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,40,000/with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its final realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The driver and owner-insured, i.e. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short "HRTC") have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons: 5. Surekha Devi, the claimant-injured became the victim of vehicular accident on 20.01.2008, which was caused by driver, namely Mangal Singh, while driving HRTC bus, bearing registration No. HP074509, rashly and negligently near Dhalli, Shimla, the claimant-injured, who was travelling in the said vehicle, sustained multiple injuries, was immediately taken to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (for short "IGMC"), remained admitted upto 03.03.2008. She has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 6. The claimant-injured filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,60,000/, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 7. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 8. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP074509 by respondent No. 1? ...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. Relief." 9. Parties have led evidence. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,40,000/ in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents, in terms of the impugned award. Issue No. 1: 11. ...OPP 3. Relief." 9. Parties have led evidence. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,40,000/ in favour of the claimant-injured and against the respondents, in terms of the impugned award. Issue No. 1: 11. There is no need to return findings on issue No. 1 for the reason that the findings returned on the said issue have not been questioned by any of the parties. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 12. Admittedly, the claimant-injured was a student of 10+2 at the relevant point of time. It has also been averred that she was working with All India Radio and was earning Rs. 8,000/per month from all sources, as per the details given in the claim petition. 13. The Tribunal, after discussing the evidence, assessed the compensation, which, on the face of it, is not legally correct. 14. I have gone through the record and the impugned award and am of the considered view that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in determining the compensation under various heads. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation while keeping in view the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused to the claimant-injured due to the said accident, which is not in dispute. 15. It is beaten law of land that for assessing compensation in injury cases, the Court has to make guess work. 16. 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 guess work is to be done 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 wellnigh 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." 17. 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.” 18. The Apex Court in the case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, also laid down the guidelines for granting compensation. The Apex Court in the case titled as Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, also laid down the guidelines for granting compensation. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 and 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.” 19. 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.” 20. Applying the test, it is profitable to reproduce the statement of PW6, Dr. Manoj Thakur, herein: "Stated that I have been posted as Associate Professor in the Department of Orthopedic, Indira Gandi Medical College, Shimla since 1998. Surekha Devi daughter of Sh. Beli Ram Verma, resident of Village Koti, aged 23 years, was admitted in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla on 23.01.2008. She had suffered a fracture of D 12 without deficit. She was operated upon on 17.02.2008. She was discharged on 4.3.2008. Surekha Devi also visited our Department for follow up treatment with regular intervals and she was lastly examined for the purpose of assessment of disability on 3.6.2009. The disability suffered by her was assessed at 30% in relation to whole lower limbs permanent in nature. Accordingly, Medical Board issued Disability Certificate, Ex. PW3/ A, which bears my signature. The Chairman of the Medical Board was Professor Mukand Lal and other member was Dr. Lokesh Thakur. During her hospitalization, the petitioner required one attendant. The petitioner has been advised to avoid heavy work and strenuous activities. The Moss Miami system was used for stabilization of her fracture which cost Rs. 45,000/. Total amount of expenditure on treatment approximately must have been spent about Rs. One lac. She is visiting the O.P.D. Cross-examination on behalf of Ajay Kochhar, Advocate. It can be ascertained from the prescription slip as to whether the petitioner is coming for review or followup treatment. The prescription slip has not been shown to me today in the court. The said expenditure of Rs. One lacs stated by me is approximate. One lac. She is visiting the O.P.D. Cross-examination on behalf of Ajay Kochhar, Advocate. It can be ascertained from the prescription slip as to whether the petitioner is coming for review or followup treatment. The prescription slip has not been shown to me today in the court. The said expenditure of Rs. One lacs stated by me is approximate. She will not suffer in her married life, because of the disability. The petitioner is now recovered. Cross-examination by Sh. Varinder Katoch, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. The said cross-examination followed." 21. In view of the disability certificate, Ext. PW3/ A, read with the expert evidence (supra), the claimant-injured has suffered 30% permanent disability, which has affected her lower limbs, is suggestive of the fact that she is not in a position to do any work including domestic work, which she would have done, had she not sustained the injuries. She has not only suffered disability of lower limbs, but it has affected her spinal cord also. 22. 30% permanent disability suffered by the claimant-injured has affected her earning capacity throughout. Not only it has affected her earning capacity throughout, it would have become very difficult for her to get a suitable match, which she would have otherwise got easily, had she not become the victim of the vehicular accident. 23. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant-injured at Rs. 3,000/per month from all sources, as discussed in para 15 of the impugned award, which, on the face of it, is not legally correct for the reason that even a labourer in the year 2008 would not have been earning less than Rs. 150/per day and minimum income of a labourer would not have been less than Rs. 4,500/per month. 24. The claimant-injured was 23 years of age at the relevant point of time, was maiden, was a student of 10+2 class and also performing duties with All India Radio, which is suggestive of the fact that she would have good future to come after completing her graduation and post graduation. 25. Thus, by guess work, while treating her a labourer or a house wife, it can be safely said and held that the earning capacity of the claimant-injured would have been not less than Rs. 4,500/per month. 26. Admittedly, the claimant-injured was in hospital for about three months, thereafter had to go to hospital for followups. 25. Thus, by guess work, while treating her a labourer or a house wife, it can be safely said and held that the earning capacity of the claimant-injured would have been not less than Rs. 4,500/per month. 26. Admittedly, the claimant-injured was in hospital for about three months, thereafter had to go to hospital for followups. She was also advised bed rest, as per para 20 of the impugned award, which is also not in dispute. Thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to Rs. 4,500/x 10 = Rs. 45,000/, under the head 'loss of income for ten months'. 27. The injury has affected the earning capacity of the claimant-injured throughout to the extent of 30%. In view of the above, it can be safely said and held that it has affected her earning capacity to the tune of Rs. 1,500/per month. 28. The age of the claimant-injured was 23 years at the time of the accident. Viewed thus, the multiplier of 15' is just and appropriate in view of the Second Schedule appended with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as 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 the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, and Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105. 29. Having said so, the claimant-injured is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,500/x 12 x 15 = Rs. 2,70,000/under the head 'loss of future income'. 30. As discussed hereinabove and also by the Tribunal in paras 13 to 21 of the impugned award, the injury has affected the spine of the claimant-injured, which would have also affected her marriage prospects. It appears that compensation for the same has not been granted because the doctor has stated that the injury will not affect her matrimonial life, which is not factually and legally correct, keeping in view of the prevailing circumstances relating to contracting and performing marriages. Applying the ratio of the above discussions, the claimant-injured is held entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/under the head 'loss of marriage prospects'. 31. Applying the ratio of the above discussions, the claimant-injured is held entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/under the head 'loss of marriage prospects'. 31. The claimant-injured has also undergone pain and sufferings due to the injury sustained by her. She remained admitted for about three months, was advised bed rest and had to visit the hospital for followups. She has suffered 30% permanent disability due to which she will be suffering throughout her life. In view of the above, she is at least held entitled to Rs. 50,000/under the head 'pain and sufferings undergone' and Rs. 1,00,000/under the head 'future pain and sufferings'. 32. It appears that because of the said injury, the claimant-injured is deprived of the amenities of life as the injury has affected her physical frame, her charm of enjoyment of life and other factors and Rs. 1,00,000/under the head 'loss of amenities of life' is just compensation. 33. The claimant-injured has been granted Rs. 75,000/under the head 'medical treatment past and future'. The claimant-injured has placed on record the copies of bills, Ext. PW3/ E1 to PW3/ E48, which do disclose that the claimant-injured has spent at least Rs. 60,000/and had to spent for future followups also as per the disability certificate, Ext. PW3/ A and the doctors evidence. Thus, it appears that compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/, as awarded by the Tribunal, under the head 'medical treatment' is just compensation, which is upheld accordingly. 34. The claimant-injured was admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 22.01.2008 to 03.03.2008 and was advised bed rest in view of the injury which she has suffered. Therefore, she must have taken the services of an attendant at least for the said period of ten months and would have to pay at least Rs. 5,000/per month. Accordingly, compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/is awarded under the head 'attendant charges'. 35. The family members and relatives of the claimant-injured would have been attending her in the hospital for the period she remained admitted. She had also to visit the hospital for followups. Thus, at least, Rs. 20,000/was to be awarded under the head 'travelling expenses'. Only Rs. 5,000/has been awarded, which is too meager. Accordingly, by guess work, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/under the head 'travelling expenses'. 36. She had also to visit the hospital for followups. Thus, at least, Rs. 20,000/was to be awarded under the head 'travelling expenses'. Only Rs. 5,000/has been awarded, which is too meager. Accordingly, by guess work, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/under the head 'travelling expenses'. 36. Having said so, the claimant-injured is held entitled to the enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,000/+ Rs. 2,70,000/+ Rs. 1,00,000/+ Rs. 50,000/+ Rs. 1,00,000/+ Rs. 1,00,000/+ Rs. 75,000/+ Rs. 50,000/+ Rs. 20,000/= Rs. 8,10,000/with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs. 85,000/paid by respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident is to be deducted from the total amount of compensation. 37. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove. 38. Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the enhanced awarded amount before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. On deposition of the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 39. Send down the record after placing a copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.