ORDER : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. “ 12 . In case of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries. 13 . The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident. This Court in Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. explained “just compensation” in the following words: 15 . It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and court must be on a large peripheral field.” " 7 . ........Second, the High Court determined the income of the deceased by taking the average of the ITRs filed for the years 2002- 03 at ? 54,000 p.a., 2003-04 at ? 52,405 p.a., and 2004-05 at ? 51,500 p.a. The learned Single Judge disregarded the ITR for the year 2006-07, wherein the income of the deceased was shown as ? 98,500 p.a. on the ground that it was allegedly filed almost one year after the death of the deceased. This finding also is factually incorrect......"