JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.4.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta whereby compensation of Rs. 27,350/- was awarded to the claimant-appellant and refused total claim of Rs. 9,38,200/-. 2. The appellant became a victim of road accident, which occurred on 17.3.1999 at 10:30 PM when he was purchasing Bidi from shop of Heerji then respondent No. 1 Rajendra came driving Jeep No. RJ 01-C-6332 rashly and negligently and hit the appellant. The appellant fell down, his wrist watch worth Rs. 500/- got damaged and the appellant got injuries in both legs. He is now unable to walk and run properly as he was walking and running prior to the accident. A claim of Rs. 9,38,200/- was filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 {herein after 'the Act'}. 3. The appellant claimed compensation with interest by making assertions that at the time of accident, he was 20 years of age and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep by respondent No. 1 Rajendra. Due to the accident, the appellant sustained fracture in both legs and remained in hospital for 21 days. It was also asserted that he spent Rs. 40,000/- by way of medical expenses. After that he was apprehensive of loss of earning and it has affected his livelihood. He has been suffering constant pain and discomfort through out. 4. In the written statement, the respondents denied allegation of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep and pleaded that they were not liable for compensation. 5. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep owned by respondent No. 2. The Tribunal then considered issue of compensation and awarded Rs. 27,350/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till date of deposit, vide judgment and award dated 12.4.2001. 6. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Act and contended that the appellant has suffered 40% disability but a meager amount of Rs. 6. Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Act and contended that the appellant has suffered 40% disability but a meager amount of Rs. 27,350/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application and claimed that he is entitled for enhancement of the compensation from the date of petition till date of realization. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. The personal sufferings of survivors of road accidents or those who are rendered disabled in such accidents are manifold. Sometimes they can be measured in terms of money but most of the times it is not possible to do so. If an individual is permanently disabled in an accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases of total or partial disablement, the term 'compensation' used in Section 166 of the Act would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for particular injury or disability caused by an accident. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012 DNJ (SC) 20 observed that: "It is, therefore, imperative that the officers, who preside over the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal adopt a proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under Section 166 of the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives in adequate measure. The amount of compensation in such cases should invariably include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages." 9. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 , Hon'ble Supreme reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be adequate and justified. The factors which should be kept in mind while determining the amount of compensation were also identified. Relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: "The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. Relevant portions of the judgment are extracted below: "The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should not be considered to be a windfall. Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. The question as to the methodology required to be applied for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss of future earnings, however, as far as possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible to promotion immediately; there might have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another situation the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance of promotion, having regard to the nature of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult for any Court to lay down rigid tests which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. In the Indian context several other factors 6 should be taken into consideration including education of the dependents and the nature of job. In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact, while determining the multiplicand this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashuben held that even dearness allowance and perks with regard thereto from which the family would have derived monthly benefit, must be taken into consideration. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration wholly incorrect? Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation into consideration wholly incorrect? Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard-and-fast rule, however, can be laid down therefor." (Emphasis supplied) 10. In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 , the Apex Court observed 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 insofar 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." (Emphasis supplied) 11. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court considered some of the precedents and held: "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. 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 8 normal longevity). 12. The ratio of the above judgment is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. 13. In the light of the above, whether the compensation awarded to the appellant is just or he is entitled to enhancement of the compensation, following is to be considered by this Court: (1) Loss of earning and other gains due to the accident. (2) Loss of future earning on account of the disability. (3) Expenses for future treatment. (4) Compensation for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident. (5) Loss of amenities including loss of the prospects of marriage. (6) Loss of expectation of life. 14. In the present case, the appellant has suffered fracture and contended that due to the accident 40% disability has occurred to him but he could not substantiate such 40% disability by producing Disability Certificate from a Medical Board nor any Doctor was examined in this respect. From the evidence, it has come on record that the appellant suffered fracture in his left leg and he remained in hospital for 21 days. From the evidence, it has come on record that the appellant suffered fracture in his left leg and he remained in hospital for 21 days. He has submitted bills of medical treatment to the tune of Rs. 6,300/- only. It was also stated in the evidence that before the accident, he was earning Rs. 5000/- from donkey-pulled cart (chhakda). The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation against fracture, Rs. 6,300/- towards treatment against the bills produced and Rs. 1050/- towards loss of income during hospitalization for 21 days, at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. 15. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation against nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure during treatment and the damages for pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident. Loss of income during period of treatment/hospitalization is also assessed at lower side. 16. It would, thus, be appropriate to compute the loss of income to the appellant at Rs. 100/- per day during 21 days of hospitalization and a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- against pain, suffering and trauma as also nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure during treatment. Consequently, the appellant is held entitled to compensation as follows: Towards Fracture 20,000 Good Nutrition, Pain, Suffering And Trauma 20,000 Medical Expenses 6,300 Loss Of Earning 2,100 Total Rs.48,400/- 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 12.4.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta is modified for compensation as aforementioned. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be payable with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the appeal.