Harbans Lal, J.
1. This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.5.1995 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur city, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Case No. 134 of 1989, whereby a sum of Rs. 30,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant Kailash Chand was on 19.6.1988 talking to Munna Baba near the overhead water tank situated in Jawahar Nagar. A jeep No. RRX 1968, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came from Jawahar Nagar bypass road and dashed against him as a result of which he sustained fractures in his left leg and severe injuries on other parts of his body, as a result of which he had to remain admitted in hospital and had to undergo treatment after taking leave from his job. The said jeep belonged to Hindustan Engineering and was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. At the time of accident appellant was working as helper with Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,260. He filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs. 3,05,000 as compensation. The claim petition was contested by the registered owner and the insurance company by filing reply to the claim petition but the Tribunal after framing issues and recording of evidence of the parties and affording an opportunity of hearing to them passed the award on 9.5.1995 holding that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of jeep No. RRX 1968 which was owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the said award, appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of award. No appeal seems to have been filed on behalf of the owner and insurer of the jeep.
3. No one is present today on behalf of respondent No. 2 though power has been filed on his behalf by Mr. B.C. Rawat, Advocate and service on respondent No. 1 has been dispensed with.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the amount of compensation awarded in this case is too low and meagre which should be enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000 as has been done in the case of Shyam Ratan v. Jawahar Lal Sharma, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 559 of 1999; decided on 13.12.2001 (Rajasthan).
5. I have perused the impugned judgment/award in the light of the submissions made at the Bar. Indeed, there is no well settled universal formula for assessing the amount of compensation in the case of injury. There is always an element of surmises and conjectures in the assessment of compensation. However, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages or special damages. The pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money. Non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages may include the expenses incurred on medical attendance, loss of earnings of profit up to the date of trial and other material loss. Non-pecuniary damages include, damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, e.g., on account of an injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit and damages for loss of expectation of life, i.e., shortening of normal longevity of life of the person and inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
6. As indicated above, it is really very difficult to assess the exact amount of compensation for pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for his having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of a victim of accident. That is why it has been said by the courts that whenever any amount is determined as 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 money, it is well-nigh impossible to equate money with the human suffering or deprivations.
7. So taking into consideration all these factors and the difficulty in assessing the exact amount of compensation, it is to be seen as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below in the facts and circumstances of the case requires to be enhanced or not
8. The Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000 to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him. It has not awarded any amount for transportation from residence to the hospital for the purpose of treatment which has been separately claimed and about which he has deposed that he spent about Rs. 150 per trip and had to undertake about 20/25 trips. He has also stated that he spent around Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 70,000 on his treatment. He cannot stand, sit or squat easily. He feels great difficulty in riding a bicycle. He feels lot of pain in winter season. His affected leg has become slenderer. The Tribunal has held that there is no loss of earnings because he has got his due promotion and increase in salary but the Tribunal has obviously overlooked that if he had not met with the accident and not sustained the fractures in his leg, the prospects of his getting better employment and thus a better earning could not be ruled out. No amount has been awarded on account of pain and suffering, which he has already suffered and which he is likely to suffer in future. Likewise also no compensation has been awarded for loss of amenities in life and loss of expectation of life, i.e., longevity of his life. The Tribunal below has also not awarded any amount for inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in his life resulting from the accident. As per Exh. 4, his earning capacity has been permanently reduced by 21 per cent. In these facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant in this case appears obviously too low and meagre and deserves to be suitably enhanced.
9. It is no doubt, well settled that the court should be reluctant to interfere in the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal unless the assessment is erroneous upon principles or too low or too high which is often said outside 'the brackets'. The instant case is clearly a case of such a nature. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be distinguishable on facts looking to the nature of injuries suffered by victim therein and the evidence led in that case. The appellant in this case deserves to be awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000 as compensation for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and likely to be suffered in future, for loss of amenities of life on account of not being able to walk, ride a bicycle, run, sit or squat, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. He also appears to be entitled to an award of Rs. 2,000 for transportation charges from the residence to the hospital and back and Rs. 9,000 for treatment, nourishing food, etc. and Rs. 13,200 on account of charges incurred by him for going to his duty and corning there from after the accident under the head of 'pecuniary damages'. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,800 on account of loss of earnings which deserves to be maintained and thus a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000 appears to be just, fair and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the appellant in this case on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident and the award deserves to be modified/enhanced accordingly.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest on the difference in amount at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of realisation of the amount.