Judgment Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.— CONC No.53/2019 1. Condonation of delay is sought for in this application. For reasons detailed therein, application is allowed and delay of 123 days in filing Appeal (MA no.38/2019) is condoned. CONC no.53/2019 disposed of. CM No.4119/2019 2. Application, for averments made therein, is allowed and delay of 180 days in filing Appeal (MA no.58/2019) is condoned. CM no.4119/2020 disposed of. 3. As corollary of above, both the Appeals are taken hereinafter for disposal. 4. These are two Appeals against a composite Award dated 27th September 2018, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shopian (for short “Tribunal”) has given in two Claim Petitions, bearing File no.02/Claim titled Gh. Nabi Ganie and others v. Yasir Mukhtar Allaie and others and File no.03/Claim titled Ab Razaq Hella and others v. Yasir Mukhtar Allaie and others. 5. Both claims petitions have arisen out of an accident that took place on 20th September 2013, in which Showkat Ahmad Hella, while riding on a Motor Cycle bearing Registration no.JK22/8792 along with other person, namely, Hilal Ahmad Ganie, from Kharwara towards Shopian, on reaching at Nagisharan, was struck by a vehicle (Swift) bearing Registration no.JK22/ 4700, being driven rashly and negligently by driver of offending vehicle, namely, Yasir Mukhtar Allie son of Mukhtar Ahmad resident of Alyalopoa Shopian. Showkat Ahmad Hella sustained severe injuries in his body, due to which he has turned permanently disabled whereas Hilal Ahmad Ganie died on spot. FIR no.141/2013 was registered in police station Shopian, in which it is mentioned that on 20th September 2013, deceased while driving motor cycle bearing Registration no.JK22/8792 along with injured riding on it, was hit by a speedy driven Swift Car bearing Registration no.JK22/4700, while being plied by its driver, Yasir Mukhtar Allie, in which Hilal Ahmad Ganie died on spot while as injured Showkat Ahmad Hella suffered injuries besides two other persons in the Swift Car were also injured. Both claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal on 20th December 2013. Respondents before Tribunal, upon service. Appellant herein filed its objections in opposition to both claim petitions. 6. Both claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal on 20th December 2013. Respondents before Tribunal, upon service. Appellant herein filed its objections in opposition to both claim petitions. 6. The Tribunal, taking into account pleadings of the parties, framed issues in both Claim Petitions on 3rd September 2015, which are: Claim Petition no.1 1) Whether on 20.09.2013 the injured Showkat Ahmad Hella was riding on Motor cycle bearing Registration No.JK22/8792 from Kharwara towards Nagisharan and was hit by a vehicle bearing Registration no.JK22/4700 which was being driven by Yasir Mukhtar Allie rashly and negligently resulting in the injuries to Showkat Ahmad Hella? (OPP) 2) In case Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative the petitioner is entitled for compensation from whom and to what extent? (OPP) 3) Whether the respondent Driver was driving the offending vehicle without valid and effective vehicular documents? (OPR) 4) Relief. Claim Petition no.2 1) Whether on 20.09.2013 the deceased was riding on Motor cycle bearing Registration No.JK22/8792 along with another person, namely, Showkat Ahmad Hella from Kharwara towards Nagisharan and was hit by a vehicle bearing Registration no.JK22/4700 and was being driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently resulting in the injuries to Showkat Ahmad Hella? (OPP) 2) In case Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative the petitioner is entitled for compensation from whom and to what extent? (OPP) 3) Whether the respondent Driver was driving the offending vehicle without valid and effective vehicular documents? (OPR) 4) Relief. 7. In both claim petitions, parties produced and examined witnesses. Issue no.1, qua occurrence of accident, was akin in both claim petitions. Witnesses adduced in both claim petitions stated that on 20th September 2013, driver of Motorcycle, namely, Hilal Ahmad Ganie, with Showkat Ahmad as pillion rider, on reaching at near Nagsheran, was hit by vehicle, Swift, bearing Registration no.JK22/4700, which resulted in on-the-spot death of driver of Motor Cycle, Hilal Ahmad Ganie, and serious injuries to Showkat Ahmad Hella, turning him totally disabled. This cause of accident was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. Issue no.1 in both claim petitions was decided in favour of claimants. 8. Issue no.3 concerns validity of driving licence; it has been decided in favour Insurance Company (appellant herein). Compensation in both claim petitions was granted in favour of claimants to be paid by Appellant/Insurance Company with right of recovery from the owner. 9. Issue no.1 in both claim petitions was decided in favour of claimants. 8. Issue no.3 concerns validity of driving licence; it has been decided in favour Insurance Company (appellant herein). Compensation in both claim petitions was granted in favour of claimants to be paid by Appellant/Insurance Company with right of recovery from the owner. 9. Now advert to Appeals on hand; they are taken up and decided in ad seriatim. MA No.38/2019 10. In this Appeal, it is averred that appellant is aggrieved of finding returned by the Tribunal as to Issue no.2, viz. in case Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, petitioner is entitled for compensation from whom and to what extent. According to appellant quantum of compensation of Rs.13.26 Lakhs has been granted exorbitantly and on higher side. It is maintained that respondents 1 to 5 have failed to establish by any cogent evidence that deceased was a skilled labourer as they did not place on record any documentary evidence to show that deceased was doing business of shuttering and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Despite lack of documentary evidence, the Tribunal is stated to have treated deceased a skilled labourer and passed award impugned. It is also averred that deceased was maintaining only two members of his family, which include respondents 2&3, and not respondents 1,4&5. In presence of wife and one child, other respondents, i.e. respondents 1,4&5, being father, sister and mother, could not be treated as dependent upon the income of deceased and, therefore, deductions on account of personal expenses ought to have been 1/3rd of his income and not 1/4th. 11. First and foremost; there cannot be actual compensation for anguish of heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stipulates that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.” [Vide: K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274 ]. 12. In the present case, appellant Insurance Company maintains that the Tribunal has exorbitantly granted compensation because deceased was not a skilled labourer and to that extent claimants did not produce any documentary evidence. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 274 ]. 12. In the present case, appellant Insurance Company maintains that the Tribunal has exorbitantly granted compensation because deceased was not a skilled labourer and to that extent claimants did not produce any documentary evidence. These submissions of appellant are specious and misconceived. The Tribunal assessed income of deceased on the basis of unshaken evidence produced before it. The court of first instance, viz. Tribunal, was in a better position to appreciate oral testimony that was available before it, while it assessed computations on various heads on the basis of evidence and as a result thereof computed compensation in favour of claimants, that is correct on all counts. My above views, observations and finding are fortified by a judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd and others, 2020 (3) SCC 57 . 13. Another submission of learned counsel for appellant is that 1/3rd in place of 1/4th should have been deducted on account of personal expenses from the income of deceased because respondents 1,4&5 are not dependent upon income of deceased. Again, this submission is misconceived and baseless. It is well-settled that legal representatives of deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Even major, married and earning legal representatives of deceased have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider application irrespective of the fact whether concerned legal representative is fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit claim towards conventional heads only. Reference in this regard is made to National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and others, AIR 2020 SC 434 . 14. In view of above backdrop, impugned Award, in that view of matter, warrants no interference. And as a corollary thereof, Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. For reasons discussed herein above, Appeal on hand is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. MA No.58/2019 16. Appellant in Appeal on hand as well is aggrieved of finding returned qua Issue no.2 by the Tribunal while granting impugned Award. Appellant maintains that respondents/claimants have failed to establish by any cogent evidence medical expense incurred in treatment of respondent no.8 inasmuch as there was no documentary evidence therefor. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. MA No.58/2019 16. Appellant in Appeal on hand as well is aggrieved of finding returned qua Issue no.2 by the Tribunal while granting impugned Award. Appellant maintains that respondents/claimants have failed to establish by any cogent evidence medical expense incurred in treatment of respondent no.8 inasmuch as there was no documentary evidence therefor. It is also averred that there is no permanent disablement as there is no expert opinion qua 40% disablement of respondent no.8 and that the doctor, who was examined, did not state anything about disablement of respondent no.8. The finding on loss of amenities of life is said to be also bad in law and on higher side. 17. In the backdrop of averments made in Appeal, it may be pertinent to mention here that it has been emphasised over and over again that “just compensation” should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before occurrence of accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, by which society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives. 18. Broadly speaking, while fixing amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which victim has actually incurred and which are 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 claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include : (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the 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 claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for 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. 19. The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , has laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries, which are: “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.” 20. It is not impertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court has said that courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach but, instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. It is not impertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court has said that courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach but, instead, view the matter taking into account the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, and compensation under various heads. The Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon victim. The attendant trauma of victim’s having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the Judge’s mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of an individual, thus depriving a person of essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of able bodied, victim is thrust into world of disabled, itself most discomfiting. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts, oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. The Supreme Court after saying this, while partly allowing Civil Appeal no.2567 of 2020 titled Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others, vide judgement dated 17th September 2020, enhanced compensation from Rs. 7,77,600/- to Rs.19,65,600/-, in favour of injured person. If the present case is analysed in light of abovementioned judgement, it can be fairly said that Tribunal has been conservative in awarding the compensation in favour of injured claimant. As a consequence whereof, impugned Award need not be interfered with. Having said that, Appeal on hand is liable to be dismissed. 21. Given above discussion, the Appeal is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 22. Nonetheless, while dismissing the present Appeals, one submission of appellant Insurance Company is worth to consideration and requires to be accepted, i.e. last paragraph of the Award, by which appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay 9% interest, in the event appellant Insurance company does not pay the compensation within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the Award. The said portion of the Award directing payment of interest @ 9% is liable to be set-aside as the same goes against the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and by this Court. Thus, concluding paragraph of the Award dated 27th September 2018, insofar as it directs payment of 9% interest, is set-aside. 23. Record be sent down along with copy of this judgment.