JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 18.4.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No.12, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1603 of 1995, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.1,01,400/- towards compensation to the appellant, the appellant has filed present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as under:- 2.1 The appellant, on the day of accident has proceeded from Vaghodiya to Kagdapura and she was standing near new Aaramgruh. Thereafter, she was traveling in bus of Gujarat State Road and Transport Corporation. However, the bus in which she was travelling was not proceeded towards Kagdapura. Therefore, conductor stopped the bus and while the appellant was got down from the bus and that relevant point of time, the driver of the offending S.T. bus has without taking any proper care and due diligence driven the bus in negligent manner. Due to this she fall down from the bus and sustained injuries and admitted to the S.S.G. Hospital. Therefore she has filed claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No.12, Vadodara being M.A.C.P. No.1603 of 1995 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.1,01,400/- towards compensation to the appellant. 2.2 Hence, present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly calculated the disability and future prospects of the lady in light of the injury sustained by the lady. It is also further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered 40% negligency on the part of the original claimant. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly awarded the amount under the head of pain shock and suffering and under the head of attendant charges and under the head of special diet and loss of amenities. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. I have also gone through the record and proceedings. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly awarded the amount under the head of pain shock and suffering and under the head of attendant charges and under the head of special diet and loss of amenities. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. I have also gone through the record and proceedings. Though, twice notice came to be served to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, the corporation has chosen not to appear in person nor engaged the advocate and therefore, in absence of corporation, present appeal is required to be decided, since the appeal is pending from 2008 i.e. more than 14 years and S.T. corporation has not taken pain to engage any advocate nor personally remained present before this Court. 5. Considering the fact that the accident took place on 5.5.1995, while the injured applicant was got down from the bus and at that relevant point of time, the driver of the offending S.T. bus has without taking any proper care and due diligence driven the bus in negligent manner and because of that the appellant injured sustained serious injury on his body. She remained as indoor patient for quite long time. There were 3 to 4 operations had been performed for different purpose including the skin grafting from one leg to another leg. It appears that the Tribunal has considered 30% permanent partial disablement. 6. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013 (8) SCC 389 and submitted that it is well-settled principle that in granting compensation for personal, injury, the injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. 7. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant and considered the material available on record of the appeal. 8. It appears that the decision on which learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance i.e. Rekha Jain (supra), the facts of the said case are something different than the facts of the present case. 7. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant and considered the material available on record of the appeal. 8. It appears that the decision on which learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance i.e. Rekha Jain (supra), the facts of the said case are something different than the facts of the present case. However, considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Court and considering the injury sustained by the victim in the case, the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rekha Jain (supra) are as under:- “28. This Court is required to keep in mind justice, equity and good conscience which must be the primary, relevant and important aspects for awarding just and reasonable compensation to an unfortunate victim, the appellant herein who has sustained grievous injuries to her body and whose future prospects are completely doomed. Further, the Tribunal and the courts while awarding compensation for bodily injuries, must realise that the possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and that all other possessions and ownership are the extensions of the basic right. Bodily injuries should be equated with the deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages and the amount of damages varies in accordance with the gravity of injuries. 29. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to certain paragraphs which have been referred to by the Karnataka High Court in K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has considered the relevant important aspects from the judgment of this Court and the House of Lords and different learned scholars and authors of books on awarding pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages. The abovementioned decision states about the approach of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and courts for awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimants in relation to the bodily injuries suffered by them. it is worthwhile to extract para 16 from K. Narasimha Murthy case, which reads as under: (ILR pp. 2480-81) “76. The courts and tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence and legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision making. 2480-81) “76. The courts and tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant circumstances, evidence and legal principles governing quantification of compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision making. There should be realisation on the part of the tribunals and courts that the possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possession and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding. compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries.” 30. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., speaking about the heads of compensation, this Court has held thus: (SCC p. 556, para 9) “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the 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 the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary 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. of account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, mun 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.” 40. It is well-settled principle that in granting compensation for personal, injury, the injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. In personal injury case the two main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. Cockburn, C.J. in Fair case, distinguished the above two aspects thus: “In assessing the compensation the jury should take into account two things, first, the pecuniary loss the plaintiff sustains by the accident; secondly, the injury he sustains in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life. When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss they have to take into account not only his present loss, but his incapacity to earn a future improved income.” 60. We have already held that though the disability certificate speaks of the appellant’s disability at 30%, on account of disfigurement of the face and [ other injuries to her body, her physical fitness is completely changed, she has put on 4 to 5 kg weight, she is not fit to act and no film producer will offer her roles in their films to act as an actress Having regard to the nature of the vocation, we have to hold that she is suffering from 100% functional disability. In the light of the facts of this case and keeping in view the aforesaid evidence on record that she 1s a film actress and also taking into consideration that in the film world of this country the heroine will certainly get a substantial sum for acting in films, TV serials, modelling, it would be just and proper for us to take 50% of her annual income for the purpose of computation of her future loss of income keeping in view that throughout her life she may not be in a position to act in the films, albums and modelling. Her annual income is assessed at Rs 5,00,000, 50% of which is Rs 2,50,00 per annum which is multiplied by 17 as the proper multiplier considering he age at the time of accident by applying the legal principle laid down by thig Court in Sarla Verma v. DIC which amounts to Rs 42,50,000, Hence, we award Rs 42,50,000 compensation under the aforesaid head The Tribunal awarded only Rs 2,00,000 which is enhanced to Rs 42,50,000 under the said head. 61. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 2,00,000 for the loss of amenities, pleasure of life and her inability to attend social functions in future, Which is inadequate, therefore, it should be enhanced to Rs 10,00,000. 62. Towards the pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs 1,00,000. It should be proper to award another Rs 9,00,000 as she has undergone ordeal for a period of 4 years continuously taking treatment in Odisha and Kerala States and the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, disfigurement of the face and other bodily injuries she already suffered continuously or is likely to suffer.” 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, The present appeal deserves to be allowed and the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is required to be enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of enjoyment of life and under the head of pain shock and suffering in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 10. The said amount is after setting out the negligency considered by the learned Tribunal i.e. 40% i.e. Rs.1,69,000/-, the learned tribunal has considered 40% contributory negligency and awarded Rs.1,01,400/-. 11. Therefore, in addition to that the appellant origin claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- enhanced amount of compensation with 6% simple interest from the date of application till the realization of the award. 12. Hence, in view of the aforesaid calculation, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of application till the realization of the award. 13. 12. Hence, in view of the aforesaid calculation, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of application till the realization of the award. 13. Therefore, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of present order with 6% interest failing which it is open for the appellant to initiate proceedings for the execution of the recovery of the enhanced amount of compensation along with the interest. 14. The Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 6% interest in favour of the claimant after verifying the bank details of the claimants. 15. In view of the aforesaid the impugned judgment and award 18.4.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No.12, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No.1603 of 1995 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly the appeal is party allowed. 16. The First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 17. The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith.