JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant – Insurance Company. Respondents, including original claimant, though served, have remained absent. Thereby, it can be presumed that respondents have nothing to say against the contentions in the appeal, wherein Insurance Company has prayed to reduce the amount of compensation on different heads. 2. It is undisputed fact that respondent No.3 herein has preferred M.A.C.P. No.537 of 2000 before the M.A.C.T. of Vadodara on 28.3.2000 for the injuries sustained by her in vehicular accident on 10.10.1996. It is her say that she was travelling on scooter as a pillion rider. Driver of the vehicle No.GJ-1U-5550 came with excessive speed, rashly and negligently and without giving any signal, suddenly turned his vehicle and dashed with the scooter of the claimant. Because of such impact, claimant fell down and sustained bodily injuries. However, at present, there is no dispute regarding nature of incident, its result and liability of Insurance Company, because in appeal, the Insurance Company has mainly contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. The main grounds in appeal are two fold – (1) since the claimant is in service and when there is no reduction in her salary, but when salary has been increased by passage of time after the incident, there is no actual loss of income and therefore, claimant is not entitled to any compensation for future loss of income; and (2) though the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering for simple fracture, there is additional award of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 3. I have perused the available recored as well as the R & P of the Tribunal. So far as first ground is concerned, I do not find any substance in the appeal inasmuch as, it is settled legal position that the amount of compensation for loss of earnings can be awarded even to salaried persons, because for the same job-profile, claimant would require more strain and pain to perform the same duties after the disability and therefore, even if there is no actual financial loss in their earnings because of fixed salary, they are entitled to be compensated for undergoing more strain as well as pain and difficulties in performing the same duties after the accident. 4. 4. The reference to the decision in the case of Mohanbhai Gemabhai Vs. Balubhai Savjibhai & Ors. reported in 1993(1) GLR 249 is relevant wherein Division Bench of this Court has considered and observed as under:- “The word 'just' employed under this Section is of very wide amplitude. While interpreting the said provision, the Court is obliged to consider and it is its supreme duty to award just compensation to the eligible claimants. The interpretation must be meaningful, since, such a provision is designed to compensate, as far as possible, the victim of the Road Accident for the losses and injuries sustained by him or her on account of unfortunate Road Accident. It is True that what Court estimates and assesses is not the value of the loss of life or loss of limbs or effect on the integrity of the body, which is, otherwise, invaluable. No amount of money can substitute the effect on the bodily frame or integration of the body. Thus, money cannot renew a shattered human frame. But, what we award is to recompensate the claimant, as far as possible, under the head of pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, so as to make an attempt to place the claimant in the same financial position as he would have been, has there been no accident. Tribunals must also be conscious of the fact that the compensation awarded should neither be punitive to the person against whom the claim is awarded nor should it be a windfall or bonanza to any person in whose favour it is awarded. The amount of compensation should be just and reasonable in the circumstances, and keeping an eye on all the relevant aspects. It is true that the word 'just' is not statutorily defined like the word 'compensation' under the Act. However, one can safely conclude that no method of calculation of compensation would be justified if it is not appeared to be just, looking to the peculiar facts in a given case. It may be recalled that 'just' compensation would mean reasonable compensation. Therefore, 'just' would mean appropriate equitable or proper determination of compensation being dependant on several imponderables in the assessment of compensation, there is likely to be some margin of error. However, it is settled that compensation must be reasonably or justly assessed with moderation. It may be recalled that 'just' compensation would mean reasonable compensation. Therefore, 'just' would mean appropriate equitable or proper determination of compensation being dependant on several imponderables in the assessment of compensation, there is likely to be some margin of error. However, it is settled that compensation must be reasonably or justly assessed with moderation. The Tribunal is required to consider various aspects and relevant circumstances while determining the issue of award under the head of prospective economic loss.” 5. So far as second ground is concerned, there is some substance in the submission by the appellant that only because of one fracture and some injuries on hand and leg, though disability would be only 12.5%, when Insurance Company has agreed to consider it at 15%, such disability would not effect the marriage prospect of the claimant and therefore, award of Rs.50,000/- on such ground of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, is unwarranted. 6. I have perused the record and proceedings. Though the Tribunal has relied upon the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in 2011 ACJ 01, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has broadly considered the probable heads, both in pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages, it can be said that awarding compensation in all such heads, is certainly based upon the basic facts and evidence in each case. Thereby, though there can be an award for loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospect or loss of expectation of life, practically, compensation on such separate heads are to be calculated and awarded in suitable case like amputation or loss of limb or sense or sight and not in all cases, more particularly, when injuries are normal and disablement is only 12.5% or so. 7. Though the law of quantum of compensation may be liberal, it is also equally clear that there cannot be a bonanza while awarding compensation, which can be awarded based upon factual details only and not based upon conceptual consideration alone. Therefore, when respondents have failed to resist this appeal and when disablement is only 15% as agreed by the Insurance Company, and when Tribunal has already awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, it can be said that award of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities, is certainly overlapping the award of compensation for pain, shock and suffering. Therefore, when respondents have failed to resist this appeal and when disablement is only 15% as agreed by the Insurance Company, and when Tribunal has already awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, it can be said that award of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities, is certainly overlapping the award of compensation for pain, shock and suffering. Therefore, to that extent, there is substance in the appeal so as to modify the award by reducing the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities of life. As aforesaid, 12 or 15% functional disability would certainly not disturb the marriage prospect of the claimant and therefore, such award is certainly unwarranted. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned award dated 30.6.2015 in M.A.C.P. No.537 of 2000 is modified, so as to correct the amount of compensation from Rs.2,51,000/- to Rs.2,01,000/-. There is no change in other part of the award. 9. The First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Appeal Partly Allowed.