Judgment 1. This appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in File No. 95/Claim titled “Johny Bhagat v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others” vide which an amount of Rs.17,55,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded from the date of filing of petition and for setting aside the same. 2. The brief facts which arise for consideration are as under:— (i) That the claimant was travelling in a car bearing No. JK02AF-1582 from Janipur towards Bikram Chowk at about 12.30 a.m. in the night, on reach fly over bridge, respondent No.3, who was driving the car in question in rash and negligent manner lost control over it and over collided against the railing of fly over bridge. The accident resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant therein/respondent No.1 herein and he has sought compensation to the amount of Rs.48.80 lacs from the respondents in this behalf. (ii) The appellant has challenged the award on the ground that it is against law and the facts. Respondent No.1 is the claimant and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle, who were insured with the appellant and respondent No.3 being the driver of the insured were driving the vehicle at the time of the accident causing injury to the claimant on 19.09.2009. (iii) Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 owner/insured and driver respectively filed written objections on 25.03.2011 denying that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. However, in para 20 of their objections they have stated that they are duly insured with respondent No.1/National Insurance Company Limited and if the petitioner/claimant was entitled to any compensation, the owner, Om Parkash being insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, B.O. Shallamar Road, Jammu, the amount may be realized from the Insurance Company. The appellant stand in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu was that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid license and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. 3. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:— 1. The appellant stand in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu was that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid license and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. 3. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:— 1. Whether an accident occurred on 19.09.2009 by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK02AF-1582 in the hands of erring driver as a result of which petitioner suffered grievous injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 2-A. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance? If so what effect? OPR-1 3. Relief O.P. Parties 4. After framing the issues, the claimants were directed to produce the evidence. 5. Interim order dated 02.01.2012 reveals that the parties wanted the case to be settled in the Lok Adalat, however, on this date, an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also filed by the counsel for the insurer that the claim is not being defended by the owner/insurer, therefore, permission may be given to the appellant to defend the case on all grounds but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal failed to pass any order on this application. Since respondent Nos. 2 & 3 did not appear after 01.03.2012 and also did not cross-examine the claimants, therefore, the application was deemed to have been allowed. 6. The main grounds of challenge in the appeal are that (i) the negligence on the part of the driver/respondent No.3 has not been proved, (ii) the amount awarded is very high and the basis of determining compensation is arbitrary and illusory, (iii) the disability of left hand is not disability of the whole body, and interest awarded is arbitrary and (iv) the amount awarded under different heads is arbitrary based on the guess work as there is no evidence and the documents riled upon by the Tribunal have not proved and are, thus, not admissible. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The Tribunal rightly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was guilty of negligence as the vehicle was hit from behind and respondent No.3 i.e. the driver who was driving the vehicle ought to have been alert enough to control the vehicle, which he failed to do so, which is possible only when he was driving at a very high speed. It is only by hitting railing that the vehicle was stopped, this saved the other occupants including the driver. So, whether the offending vehicle was hit from behind or its driver was negligent and the latter view is possible and closes to commonsense the negligence of the driver was thus proved. The fact that the claimant was insured and his left arm is to be amputated was also not disputed. The Insurance Company has not disputed the genuineness of the driving license, copy of which is at page 63, annexed by the claimant, in the claim petition. Its validity is from 08.10.2003 to 07.10.2013 so it was valid on the date of accident. The only plea that the driving license is not valid is no defense in the absence of any evidence on record. Whether it was validly issued to the respondents can also not be considered. Since no such evidence was produced nor was any witness was summoned despite opportunity afforded. 9. Appellant has also raised another ground, stating the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of Insurance Policy. This again is only a bald statement without any reference to any clause which has been violated and without any evidence, so issue No.3 was rightly decided. So far as the amount awarded for loss of income, pain and suffering, loss of limb it was undoubtedly based on guess work but guess assessment to some extent is permissible though it should be a just compensation. 10. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that in case of personal injury before the amount is awarded, the Tribunal in the first case should consider the activities of the claimant which he would be able to carry on in spite of disability and secondly, ascertain his avocation, the injured was engaged and thirdly, but despite of disability, the claim is still carrying on the normal activities. However, this question is dealt in K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 12 SCC, 274, para (4) of which is extracted below:— “(4) In the said case in Jai Bhagwan reference was made to a passage from Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (16th Edn.) which is apposite to reproduce as it relates to the awards for non-pecuniary losses:— “10. ...”In all but a few exceptional cases the victim of personal injury suffers two distinct kinds of damage which may be classed respectively as pecuniary and non-pecuniary. By pecuniary damage is meant that which is susceptible of direct translation into money terms and includes such matters as loss of earnings, actual and prospective, and out-of-pocket expenses, while non-pecuniary damage includes such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity or enjoyment of life. In respect of the former, it is submitted, the court should and usually does seek to achieve restitutio in integrum in the sense described above, while for the latter it seeks to award “fair compensation”. This distinction between pecuniary and non- pecuniary damage by no means corresponds to the traditional pleading distinction between “special” and “general” damages, for while the former is necessarily concerned solely with pecuniary losses — notably accrued loss of earnings and out-of- pocket expenses — the latter comprises not only non-pecuniary losses but also prospective loss of earnings and other future pecuniary damage.” 11. Similarly, in R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1995 SC, 755, it was held that the damages in respect of personal injury has to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages by observing as under:— “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.” 12. However, the contention of Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate is that there is no evidence about the expenses incurred in medical treatment and there is no evidence about income of the insured, who was a student at the time of accident. 13. It is true that medical bills issued by the private shops, such as, Medicate and Indian Diagnostic etc. have not been proved by examining the person, who issued them. However, the Vouchers issued by Orthopedic Medicare, Amritsar have been attested by Dr. Hardas Singh Orthopedic Hospital. So there is no difficulty in reimbursement of the bills duly attested by the Doctor of Dr. Hardas Singh Orthopedic Hospital, where the petitioner has been treated and operated for injury. 14. The statement of the petitioner, Johny Bhagat, that immediately after the accident he was taken to Medical Hospital, Jammu where he was operated and thereafter he was taken to Amritsar and was admitted in Dr. Hardas Singh Orthopedic Hospital and Super Specialty Research Centre, Circular Road, Amritsar where he remained admitted from 19.09.2009 to 05.10.2009. He has also stated that that for one year after the accident he had been taken medicines for about Rs.5000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. According to him, his left arm has been amputated. There is nothing in his statement about the amount claimed except the medical expenses regarding which he has annexed bills from the Medical Shops located in Jammu and Amritsar. His emphatic statement is that it is only his parents, who know about the expenses incurred for his treatment, though according to him the cost of medicines itself was Rs.3 lacs to Rs.4 lacs. 15. So far as his disability is concerned. Dr. Deepak Tickoo, Orthopedic Surgeon, Gandhi Nagar, Hospital has issued the Certificate. His emphatic statement is that it is only his parents, who know about the expenses incurred for his treatment, though according to him the cost of medicines itself was Rs.3 lacs to Rs.4 lacs. 15. So far as his disability is concerned. Dr. Deepak Tickoo, Orthopedic Surgeon, Gandhi Nagar, Hospital has issued the Certificate. According to this certificate, the injured was examined by him for the purposes of disability on the basis of the record furnished by him. His statement is that because of the amputation his physical disability is 80% of the left upper limb. It is also his statement that patient was admitted under MLC No. 4292 and MRD No. 527614 with a diagnosis of crush injury left arm side. He has also stated that although the petitioner will have a lot of problem for doing day to day activities in his reply but special prosthesis can be given to him, the cost of which can vary from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.10 lacs. There is no evidence for assuming the compensation under different heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,07,000/- as loss of future income after assessing the loss of income at Rs.50,400/- and applied the multiplier of 16. It was assessed after assuming his monthly income as Rs.7000/- per month. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.1,60,000/- for pain and agony, for loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/- besides medical expenses for Rs.1,43,000/-, attendant/transport charges Rs.20,000/-, special diet charges Rs.25,000/- and loss of artificial limb Rs. 4 lacs wrongly written as Rs.40,000/-. 16. It is true that some amount of guess work to be made while awarding compensation, but there must be some evidence to support the claim. The petitioner has claimed Rs.48,80,000/- from the respondents without disclosing the basis on which this amount is claimed. An amount of Rs.30,000/- is claimed as transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- per month as his income, Rs.2,50,000 as claimed for artificial limb, but the Tribunal has granted him Rs.4 lacs. 17. According to the petitioner, at the time of accident, he was doing DOEACC-A Level Course under the Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of India. This course according to him is equivalent to post graduation. The petitioner has annexed marks card of Bachelor of Science (Information and Technology), First Semester, Third Semester, fourth semester and sixth semester, which he qualified between the years 2005 to 2007. This course according to him is equivalent to post graduation. The petitioner has annexed marks card of Bachelor of Science (Information and Technology), First Semester, Third Semester, fourth semester and sixth semester, which he qualified between the years 2005 to 2007. There is nothing on record to show that he was pursing DOEACC-A Level Course, because neither the name of institution is mentioned nor the semester in which he was studying. He was pursuing MCA course from I.G.N.O.U. He has nowhere stated that he has completed the course he was studying, therefore, it cannot be considered as qualification. 18. Since he was still pursuing his studies as admitted by him in his statement dated 13.12.2012, therefore, instead of loss of monthly and annual income he is entitled to Rs.2 lacs as compensation for his disfigurement because his left upper limb has been amputated. He was also entitled to Rs. 2 lacs as loss of prospects of marriage as he is a young boy. He is entitled to Rs. 1 lac for pain and suffering, Rs.1 lac for loss of amenities of life. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,43,000 as medical expenses, however, the statement of the petitioner is that he remained admitted in the hospital in Amritsar on 19th September, 2009 to 05.10.2009, but the certified expenses are Rs.10,800/-, Rs.4900, Rs.39,300, Rs.48,512, Rs.2670, Rs.890, Rs.300, Rs. 150, Rs.1100, Rs.190, Rs.11,548 and Rs.1500 totaling to Rs.1,21,860/-. All these bills, have been attested by the hospital of Dr. Hardas Singh Orthopedic, are being allowed as medical expenses. For the fifteen days, the petitioner remained in the hospital along with attendant, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is justified for transport, stay in Amritsar and expenses from Jammu and Amritsar and back. The petitioner has been awarded Rs. 4 lac for the artificial limb as per the statement of Dr. Tickoo is recorded in March, 2013 and by this time, there must have been escalation so this amount is justified. 19. Thus, an amount of Rs. 11,31,860/- along with consolidate amount of Rs. 5 lac awarded towards loss of future income. This amount is payable to the petitioner with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu is modified in the above terms. 20. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforementioned terms.