JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 26th September 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing File no. 43/Claim, titled Salman Bashir v. Farooq Ahmad Bhat and others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 11,75,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of the file, was filed by respondent/claimant before the Tribunal on 27th June 2009, averring therein that he got injured on 2nd December 2009 when he was hit by speedy Tata Sumo bearing Registration no. JK03A-7221, owned by respondent no. 2 herein. Objections were filed by appellant Insurance Company. On the basis of pleadings, four issues were framed by the Tribunal. Claimant and appellant Insurance Company led evidence in support of their stand. And the Trial Court after deciding all the issues passed impugned Award. 3. According to learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 11.75 Lakhs as non-involvement of offending vehicle in accident cannot be ruled out as claimants have filed FIR after a period of three months from the date of occurrence. Such a submission of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company is without any substance. He asserts that it is not proved in evidence that injured has suffered permanent disability because of accident. 4. It is necessary to be borne in mind that claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. The standard of proof in motor accident claims' matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether claimant's version is more likely than not true. 5. As regards disability, the injured, Salman Bashir, has suffered 100% disability. 5. As regards disability, the injured, Salman Bashir, has suffered 100% disability. Perusal of Tribunal record reveals that an application was moved by claimant before the Tribunal for referring him to Medical Board for ascertaining quantum of disablement. The reference of claimant to Medical Board was passionately objected by appellant Insurance Company as it maintained that referring of claimant to Medical Board would amount to wastage of precious time of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal rightly allowed application and referred claimant to Medical Board for examination. Permanent disability of 100% has been certified by Medical Board. So, submission of learned counsel for appellant that it has not been proved that injured has suffered permanent disability due to accident, is, unfounded, unbecoming of and is accordingly, rejected. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has also stated that the Tribunal erred in passing impugned Award as compensation awarded by it is on higher side. It is averred that injured was 7th class student of 15 years of age. The Tribunal, without there being any basis, has taken income of injured as Rs. 1250/- per month (i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per annum) notionally and has applied the multiplier of 15. Claimant/respondent no. 1 is said to have not led any documentary evidence in support of his pleadings especially with regard to his income and medical expenses as claimant was a student. It is further contended that Tribunal has not been justified in awarding the interest for the entire period for which the claim petition remained sub judice before it due to the delay caused by respondent no. 1 himself. 7. In respect of above submissions, it may be mentioned here that the Tribunal while deciding Issue no. 2, has elaborately and comprehensively discoursed all facets of the matter as were imperative to compute and calculate compensation to be paid in favour of claimant. The Tribunal took into account the fact that a certificate was issued by Medical Board certifying 100% permanent disability. The Tribunal took just paltry amount of Rs. 1250/- as notional monthly income of claimant to compute compensation on account of loss of dependency. The Tribunal has finally awarded compensation of Rs. 11,75,000/- in favour of claimant. 8. It may be mentioned here that for computation and entitlement of compensation, the Tribunal framed Issue no. 2, and placed reliance on a number of judgements of the Supreme Court. 9. The Tribunal has finally awarded compensation of Rs. 11,75,000/- in favour of claimant. 8. It may be mentioned here that for computation and entitlement of compensation, the Tribunal framed Issue no. 2, and placed reliance on a number of judgements of the Supreme Court. 9. It is made clear here that the exercise for determination of compensation in accident cases involve some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability. But these elements are required to be considered in an objective manner. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, (1995) 2 SCC 551, claimant was a retired judge and practicing when he met with an accident causing 100% disability and paraplegia below the waist. While determining compensation payable to him in a claim filed under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 139, the Supreme Court referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:- “When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration.” 10. Broadly speaking, while fixing an 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 the victim has actually incurred and which is 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 the 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 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. 11. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident respondent/claimant, has become disabled by 40%. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him and for having become a lifelong disabled. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of claimant/respondent. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury “so far as money can compensate” because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 12. The Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2010) 10 SCC 254 , sought to assess future earnings of a final year engineering student who received injuries to the brain among others which resulted in 70% permanent disability and he needed a helper throughout his life. The Supreme Court observed:- “We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say 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 in so far as money can. Suffice it to say 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 in so far 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. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum.” 13. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court called upon to assess compensation payable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to the victim of medical negligence, who was left completely paralyzed at the age of 20. After detailed examination of the issue, the Supreme Court observed as under:- “39. We must emphasize that the Court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment, but if a case is made out, the Court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule of the thumb measure, and as a balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. It must also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe) as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualized. Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard. Life it is said is akin to a ride on a roller coaster where a meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance between the two (as in this very case) is a minute or a yard. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress, vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity. We can also visualize the anxiety of the complainant and his parents for the future after the latter, as must all of us, inevitably fade away. We, have, therefore computed the compensation keeping in mind that his brilliant career has been cut short and there is, as of now, no possibility of improvement in his condition, the compensation will ensure a steady and reasonable income to him for a time when he is unable to earn for himself.” 14. The Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 , considered a large number of precedents and laid down the following propositions:- “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. 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. 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 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.” 15. In Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the Supreme Court observed:- “8. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimant's earnings or earning capacity, or upon the loss of particular faculties or members or use of such members, ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Courts have time and again observed that the compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just, fair and proper. 9. The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because of the injury has substantially impaired or if he is unable to perform the same work with the same ease as before he was injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do previous to his injury, he will be entitled to suitable compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically every case.” 16. In view of supra-mentioned principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is suffice to say that in determining quantum of compensation payable to victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for physical injury and treatment, but also for loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. The amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity are distinct and do not overlap with the amount awarded for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life or the amount awarded for medical expenses. 17. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly assessed and computed the compensation on account loss of dependency and future prospects and in this regard relied upon R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, 2009 (8) Scale 451 . It also cannot be disputed that claimant/respondent has sustained 100% disability and has to live rest of his life in the same condition. The Tribunal has rightly said that claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads. It also cannot be disputed that claimant/respondent has sustained 100% disability and has to live rest of his life in the same condition. The Tribunal has rightly said that claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads. The computations and calculations of compensation on various heads, as is discernible from perusal of impugned Award, have been made strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court. The impugned Award is lucid, comprehensive and eloquent and therefore, does not warrant any interference and as a corollary thereof Appeal of National Insurance Company Limited is liable to be dismissed. 18. For reasons discussed above, the instant Appeal is dismissed along with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 19. Record of the Tribunal, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgement.