JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the award dated 24.09.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in M.A.C.C. No. 26S/2 of 2006, vide which, learned Tribunal has granted the following relief in favour of the claimant, i.e., the appellant before this Court: “38. In view of the findings recorded on aforesaid issues, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.17,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the amount of compensation is paid. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable, but the respondent No. 3 being insurer of the bus in question is held liable to indemnify respondents No. 1 and 2 qua the amount of compensation and, as such, directed to deposit the same in this Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant preferred a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, praying therein that he be granted compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 20th January, 2006. As per the appellant, on the date in issue, at around 1:15 p.m., the appellant/claimant (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) while he was on his way in an official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-03-2315 from Palampur to Shimla, a bus bearing registration No. HP-23-3899 came from the opposite side, which was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and the same hit the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling at a place near Bhota, as a result of which, the claimant, as also the driver of the vehicle, in which the claimant was travelling, suffered injuries. According to the claimant, he suffered injuries in his forehead, fracture of middle finger of his left hand, as also a sharp cut on the thumb of right hand. Accordingly, he filed a claim petition praying for compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident. 3. According to the claimant, he suffered injuries in his forehead, fracture of middle finger of his left hand, as also a sharp cut on the thumb of right hand. Accordingly, he filed a claim petition praying for compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “(i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-23-3899 by respondent No. 2? OPP. (ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-03-2315 by its driver? OPR1. (iii) If issues No. 1 or 2 are proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. (iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-1. (v) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR-1. (vi) Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3. (vii) Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR3. (viii) Relief.” 4. On the basis of evidence led by the respective parties, the said issues were answered in the following terms by the learned Tribunal: “Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: Yes, as mentioned in the operative part of the award. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: No. Issue No. 6: No. Issue No. 7: No. Relief: The petition is allowed as per the operative part of the award.” 5. While deciding issue No. 3 (wrongly referred to as issue No. 2 in the impugned award above para22), learned Tribunal held the claimant to be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.17,000/-. This compensation was so granted by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimant under the following headings: “(i) Expenditure on medicine and treatment: Rs.2,000/-. (ii) Loss on account of medical leave: Rs.5,000/-. (iii) Pain and suffering and loss of amenities: Rs.10,000/-Total: Rs.17,000/-” 6. While deciding the said issue, learned Tribunal held that PW3, Dr. This compensation was so granted by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimant under the following headings: “(i) Expenditure on medicine and treatment: Rs.2,000/-. (ii) Loss on account of medical leave: Rs.5,000/-. (iii) Pain and suffering and loss of amenities: Rs.10,000/-Total: Rs.17,000/-” 6. While deciding the said issue, learned Tribunal held that PW3, Dr. Raj Kumar had testified that on 22.01.2006, the claimant was referred for C.T. Scan by Professor, K.S. Jaswal and he conducted the C.T. Scan of the head of the claimant and on such examination, he found that there was evidence of breaking in cortex of inner table of frontal bone of right side. Learned Tribunal held that this witness in his cross-examination stated that he could not tell what were the effects of the injuries and he had admitted that the petitioner/claimant was not entirely treated by him. Regarding prescription slip Ex. PW2/A, learned Tribunal held that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, as the petitioner has not examined the doctor who treated him. Learned Tribunal also held that prescription slip Ex. PW2/M and Xray form Ex. PW2/Q were also not proved in evidence as the doctor who treated the petitioner and issued prescription slip Ex. PW2/M has not been examined. It also held that the contention of the claimant that one bone was found fractured and chip was still lying in the brain, was not substantiated by the testimony of the doctor and in fact PW3 had not supported the version of the claimant. It also held that the claimant had not substantiated by way of any evidence the factum of his vision having become weak or his having lost memory on account of head injury. Learned Tribunal also held that though the petitioner has claimed that he spent Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-on his treatment, but the said contention was not supported by any evidence. Learned Tribunal also held that what stood proved from the records was the factum of the claimant being lifted from Primary Health Centre, Bhota to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla in a taxi against payment of Rs.2,000/-, which stood reimbursed to him by the Government and that there was evidence of breaking in cortex of inner table of frontal bone of right side as per the opinion Ex. PW3/A and that an amount of Rs.1000/-was spent on Xray charges, out of which some amount stood reimbursed. PW3/A and that an amount of Rs.1000/-was spent on Xray charges, out of which some amount stood reimbursed. Learned Tribunal also held that record also substantiated that claimant remained on medical leave for eight days on account of his having suffered injuries. Thereafter, learned Tribunal went on to hold that the claimant had not suffered any permanent disability and accordingly the claimant was held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.17,000/-under the heads which have already been mentioned hereinabove. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has filed this appeal. 8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the records as also the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla. 9. Records demonstrate that appellant before this Court deposed before the learned Tribunal as PW2. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed about the mode and manner in which the accident took place. He thereafter stated that he came to Shimla in a taxi by paying Rs.2,000/-to the driver and he undertook his medical treatment in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. He further deposed that on 21.01.2006, his C.T. Scan was conducted by Dr. Raj. His one bone was found fractured and one chip was found lying in the brain. He further stated that he took treatment for one month and also took medicine for one month. He tendered in evidence copy of prescription slip of PHC Bhota Ex. PW2/A, Xray form Ex. PW2/B and C.T. Scan form Ex. PW2/C. He also tendered in evidence cash memos of medicines etc., i.e., Ex. PW2/H to Ex. PW2/Q. He further deposed that due to head injuries, his vision has become weak and there was loss of memory. He also stated that he remained under continuous tension as a result of the brain injury and chip lying in the brain. He further stated that he has spent about Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-on his treatment and he remained on medical leave for 15 days. 10. There is on record a prescription slip issued by PHC, Bhota, which is Ex. PW2/A. There is also on record C.T. Scan form Ex. PW2/B issued by the Medical Department of Himachal Pradesh, on the back side of the same, there is a report of the result which is Ex. PW3/A. There is also on record Ex. PW2/C, which is XRay form. PW2/A. There is also on record C.T. Scan form Ex. PW2/B issued by the Medical Department of Himachal Pradesh, on the back side of the same, there is a report of the result which is Ex. PW3/A. There is also on record Ex. PW2/C, which is XRay form. It is not in dispute that both Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C stand issued in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. 11. A perusal of the impugned award demonstrates that what weighed with the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition of the claimant only to the extent of Rs.17,000/-was that no substantive evidence was produced by the claimant on record from which it could be inferred as to what were the actual medical expenses incurred by the claimant and whether actually the claimant had suffered either any disability or any loss in vision or in memory, as alleged? What further weighed with the learned Tribunal was the fact that though the prescription slips as also the C.T. Scan form and reports were placed on record by the claimant, yet they were not proved in accordance with law. 12. In Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 330, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv), as culled out in para6 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 . Paras6 and 7 of the said judgment (Raj Kumar supra) are quoted here-in-below: “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 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). (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. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages items (iv), (v) and (vi) involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability item (ii) (a).” 13. Coming to the facts of the present case, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2000/-for expenditure on medicine and treatment. This has been done so by the learned Tribunal by holding that the claimant had not placed on record documents to substantiate that he had incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.15,000/-to Rs.20,000/-, as was in fact claimed by him. It is also not in dispute that the claimant was a Government servant when he met with the accident and he was entitled for medical reimbursement. 14. Now, it is a matter of record that no medical reimbursement was sought by the claimant. This fact stands proved from the statement of RW-3 Sh. H.L. Sharma, who was posted as Senior Accountant in the Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation, Shimla, wherein the claimant was posted as Chief Finance Officer. 14. Now, it is a matter of record that no medical reimbursement was sought by the claimant. This fact stands proved from the statement of RW-3 Sh. H.L. Sharma, who was posted as Senior Accountant in the Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Corporation, Shimla, wherein the claimant was posted as Chief Finance Officer. A perusal of the statement of RW-3 demonstrates that the claimant was on official tour to Chamba w.e.f. 13.01.2006 to 20.01.2006 and he remained on medical leave w.e.f. 13.01.2006 to 28.01.2006 and he had not claimed any medical reimbursement for the period w.e.f. 13.01.2006 to 28.01.2006 from the Corporation. In this view of the matter, when there was no evidence led by the claimant to substantiate that he had incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-, there is no infirmity with the findings returned by the learned Tribunal in this regard. Similarly, it cannot be said that learned Tribunal erred in not awarding the compensation when injury to the head stood duly proved on record. In my considered view, though the factum of injury on head having been suffered by the claimant in the accident in issue was not in dispute, but yet it was for the claimant to have had proved it through the statements of the doctors, who examined and treated him, as to what was the effect of head injury, which was suffered by the claimant. In the absence of there being the testimony of the experts on record in this regard, learned Tribunal was not bound to compensate the claimant on conjectures and surmises. Besides this, it has also come on record that the claimant had not suffered any loss of future earnings, as in his cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that his pay increased with the passage of time. 15. As far as grant of damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries is concerned, in my considered view, the amount which has been awarded in this regard by the learned Tribunal, is on the lower side. Though the effect of head injury suffered by the claimant could not be proved by him by placing on record substantive evidence, yet it is a matter of record that the claimant had suffered head injuries on account of the accident and he also remained hospitalized. Though the effect of head injury suffered by the claimant could not be proved by him by placing on record substantive evidence, yet it is a matter of record that the claimant had suffered head injuries on account of the accident and he also remained hospitalized. Therefore, in my considered view, as far as the compensation awarded to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities is concerned, the same requires enhancement and the same is ordered to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/-to Rs.35,000/-with interest, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 16. Accordingly, in view of my findings returned here-in-above, this appeal is disposed of by modifying the award dated 24.09.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.C. No. 26S/2 of 2006 to the extent that the claimant/appellant shall be entitled for an amount of Rs.35,000/-under the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also miscellaneous applications, if any.