Pradeep Nandrajog, J.:— The appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 30.4.1990 Appellant Virender Singh seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded on account of injuries sustained at a road accident on 22.11.1980 involving bus No. DEP 2672.

2. Injured was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. He was working as sepoy in Indian army and was drawing a salary of Rs. 454.45 per month.

3. Because of the accident, injured suffered serious head injuries resulting in paralysis of left side of body and 100 per cent permanent disability. Besides physical injuries, he also suffered various neurological disorders such as loss of memory, loss in concentration power, etc.

4. Injured remained hospitalised in the Army Hospital for a period from 22.11.82 to 30.5.1983, i.e, nearly 6 months. He remained unconscious for a period of about 2 months.

5. It is an admitted fact that after the accident the appellant was discharged from the army because of 100 per cent physical disability sustained by him.

6. Noting that the injured had claimed compensation in sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in the claim petition, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the injured. The said compensation is not under any head but is a lump sum compensation. There is no discussion in the award pertaining to the assessment of compensation.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, injured has filed the present appeal.

8. The learned senior counsel for the injured submitted that in fixing the compensation the Tribunal has not followed the principles laid down in the various decisions pertaining to disability suffered by persons injured in road accidents.

9. Under the provisions of Motor Vehi cles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case wherefrom the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court con siders that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is that compensation should be a ‘just’ compen sation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. [See decision of the Supreme Court in the report published as Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)].

10. Thus, the approach of the learned Tribunal in determining compensation only on the basis of amount of compensation claimed in the claim petition and not appreciating evidence led by the injured is incorrect.

11. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injuries is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages.

12. Tribunals constituted under the Act are required to make an award of compensation which has to be just. The courts and Tribunals have duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the compensation, which should be just. What would be a just compensation is a vexed question. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of just compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Determination has to be rational, to be done by judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression just denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.

13. Compensation for loss of limb or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. There can be no golden rule applicable to all the cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. The measure of damages cannot be arrived at by a precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances and attending peculiar or special features, if any. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury.

14. The thumb rule which govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the court should award to an injured person such a sum as will put him in the position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries.

15. In the light of afore-noted judicial position and backdrop facts, I shall assess the compensation to be awarded to the injured.

16. Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to the victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages.

17. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money. Pecuniary damages are easy to determine as a Tribunal would have some empirical data before it.

18. Pecuniary damages include the following:

(i) Special damages or pre-trial pecuniary loss.

(ii) Prospective loss of earnings and profits.

(iii) Medicinal expenses.

(iv) Cost of future care and other expenses.

19. Loss of salary during the period of hospitalisation: As already noted, injured remained hospitalised for a period of nearly 6 months. Since injured was not in a position to attend to his official duties during the period of hospitalisation, he needs to be recompensed for loss of salary during that period. Salary of injured at the time of accident was Rs. 454 per month. Loss of salary during hospitalisation period comes to Rs. 454 × 6 = Rs. 2,724 per month.

20. Medicinal expenses;. There is no evidence to show the expenses incurred by the injured on his treatment. However, noting that he remained hospitalised for a period of 6 months; he remained unconscious for a period of 2 months; 100 per cent permanent disability suffered by him, I consider it reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards medicinal expenses.

21. Loss of future prospects: It is an admitted fact that the injured was dismissed from the army because of 100 per cent permanent disability sustained by him on account of the accident. Further, because appellant suffered paralysis of left side of his body he has become incapacitated to do any work. Therefore he has to be awarded compensation under said head.

22. I note that the injured started getting pension in sum of Rs. 141 per month. The salary of the injured was Rs. 454 per month. Loss of income comes to Rs. 454 − Rs. 141 = Rs. 313 per month.

23. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income, the court has to take into account the prospects of future increase in the income of the injured. [See K. Narasimha Murthy v. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 1109 (Karnataka)].

24. Considering that the injured was aged 26 years at the time of the accident, I consider it reasonable to assume that his salary would have doubled by the time he would have left gainful employment. Thus, mean average loss of income of the injured comes to Rs. 470 per month.

25. Noting the age of the injured, I consider multiplier of 17 as appropriate. My reasons for so holding is the decision of the Apex Court in the report published as U.P State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC). In the said decision, Supreme Court has held that the highest multiplier of 18 has to be applied for the age group of 21 years to 25 years.

26. Applying multiplier 17, loss of future income comes to Rs. 470 × 12 × 17 = Rs. 95,880.

27. Thus compensation under the said head comes to Rs. 95,880.

28. Future care, attendant expenses: Because of 100 per cent permanent disability, the injured has become bedridden, therefore, he would require constant care and attention for rest of his life. I award compensation in sum of Rs. 50,000 under the said head.

29. Unlike pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations.

30. Non-pecuniary damages include the following:

(i) Pain and suffering.

(ii) Damages for mental and physical shock.

(iii) Loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e, on account of injury the injured may not be able to walk, run or sit, etc.

(iv) Loss of expectation of life, i.e, on account of injury normal longevity of life of the person concerned is shortened.

(v) Disfigurement.

(vi) Discomfort or inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

31. Pain and suffering: Pain and suffering compensates victim for physical and mental discomfort caused by the injury. Pain is physical; suffering is emotional. While pain is the physiological response to certain stimuli, suffering is psychological or emotional response to pain.

32. In the decision reported as R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), because of the accident, the appellant in said case became a paraplegic and suffered 100 per cent permanent disability. Date of accident was 20.5.1980 The appellant in said case had remained hospitalised for a period from 20.5.1980 to 2.8.1980 Analysing the law relating to non-pecuniary damages, compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’.

33. In the light of R.D Hattangadi's case (supra), noting the period of hospitalisation of injured; the 100 per cent physical disability suffered by him, I award compensation in sum of Rs. 1,50,000 under the head ‘pain and suffering’.

34. Loss of expectation of life: Compensation for loss of expectation of life compensates victim for the limitation, resulting from the defendant's negligence, on the injured person's ability to participate in and derive pleasure from the normal activities of daily life, or the individual's inability to pursue his talents, recreational interests, hobbies or avocations. In essence, compensation for loss of expectation of life compensates an individual for loss of life and loss of the pleasures of living.

35. In R.D Hattangadi's case (supra) compensation in sum of Rs. 1,50,000 were awarded under the head ‘loss of expectation of life’.

36. On the same analogy, I consider it reasonable to award compensation in sum of Rs. 1,50,000 under the head ‘loss of expectation of life’.

37. Depression and mental stress in life: A person not only suffers injuries on account of the accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident throughout his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. The appellant is reduced to a vegetable existence. I award compensation in sum of Rs. 50,000 under the said head.

38. Loss of marriage prospects: It is an admitted fact that the injured has remained unmarried on account of 100 per cent permanent disability suffered by him. I award compensation in sum of Rs. 1,00,000 under the said head.

39. Total compensation payable to the injured comes as under:

(a) Loss of salary during the period of hospitalisation Rs. 2, 724 (b) Medicinal expenses Rs. 10, 000 (c) Loss of future income Rs. 95, 880 (d) Future care and attendant expenses Rs. 50, 000 (e) Pain and suffering Rs. 1, 50, 000 (f) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1, 50, 000 (g) Depression and mental stress in life Rs. 50, 000 (h) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1, 00, 000 Total Rs. 6,08,604

40. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in sum of Rs. 1,00,000. Thus compensation stands enhanced by a sum of Rs. 5,08,604.

41. Enhanced compensation in sum of Rs. 5,08,604 shall be paid together with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.

42. It is further directed that enhanced compensation together with accrued interest thereon shall be deposited in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a period of 5 years. Liberty is granted to the injured/appellant to withdraw the interest accrued thereon.

43. Appeal stands disposed of.

44. No costs.

45. Appeal allowed.