JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) against the award dated 28.08.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, HP, in MAC Petition No.1- S/2 of 2014, with a prayer to enhance the awarded amount of compensation. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 22.12.2012, the petitioner was going to attend her duty in M/s Star Com Electronics, New Industrial Estate, Chambaghat, Solan and when she reached on the main road near Brewery, a vehicle (Innova Toyota) bearing registration No.PB-11AA-0752 came from Solan side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the petitioner as a result of which, she suffered multiple grievous injuries on her head and right leg. Initially, she was taken to Regional Hospital, Solan, from where, she was referred to IGMC, Shimla and remained admitted there from 22.12.2012 to 30.01.2013. She was again admitted in Regional Hospital, Solan from 08.02.2013 to 09.02.2013 and thereafter at IGMC, Shimla from 14.05.2013 to 25.05.2013, where she was again operated and bone grafting was done on 18.05.2013. The petitioner further alleged that after the accident, she was totally bedridden and was still under treatment. Her family had already spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- on her treatment. Hence, she prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 3. Respondents No.1 & 2 (owner/driver) contested the petition and filed a joint reply, wherein, it has been averred that the accident was the result of negligent act of the petitioner herself, who all of sudden appeared at the curve to cross NH in a negligent manner and struck against the vehicle. It has further been averred that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2 as he was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously and had also applied brakes to avoid the accident in question. It has been denied that the petitioner had incurred more than Rs.5,00,000/- on her treatment. 4. It has further been averred that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.2 as he was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously and had also applied brakes to avoid the accident in question. It has been denied that the petitioner had incurred more than Rs.5,00,000/- on her treatment. 4. In its reply, respondent No.3/Insurance Company, took the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, that the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence, that the vehicle was not having a valid registration certificate and there was collusion between the petitioner as well as respondents No.1 and 2. On merits, it was denied that the petitioner had suffered any disability and the expenses, as alleged, were false and exaggerated. It was submitted that the claim sought by the petitioner was highly excessive. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 18.11.2024:- “1. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident having taken place on 22.12.2012 at about 8:30 a.m. at place village Kothon, near Brewery, on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.PB-11AD-0752 by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation , if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?...OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No.2 being driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence? ...OPR-3. 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in breach of provisions of the M.V. Act and in violation of the terms and conditions of the standard insurance policy? ...OPR-3. 5. Relief. 6. The parties led their evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- and the petitioner was held entitled to compensation of Rs.3,75,994/-, alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till payment of the entire compensation amount. Respondent No.3, being insurer was directed to deposit the amount within a period of thirty days. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/ petitioner preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of MV Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the Tribunal below has erred in taking the monthly income of the appellant/petitioner as Rs.5,000/- which could not have been taken below Rs.10,000/- per month. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/ petitioner preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of MV Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the Tribunal below has erred in taking the monthly income of the appellant/petitioner as Rs.5,000/- which could not have been taken below Rs.10,000/- per month. He further contended that despite ample evidence on record, no compensation under the heads; future medical treatment, pain and sufferings in future and loss of amenities of life, has been awarded by the learned the Tribunal below, as such, the impugned award is liable to be modified, by enhancing the amount of compensation. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. He contended that the impugned award has been passed by the learned Tribunal below after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. 10. I have heard the Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, for respondent No.3 and also gone through the entire record carefully. 11. Perusal of the record makes it clear that the petitioner had sustained injuries in a motor accident, which took place on 22.12.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.PB-11AD-0752 by respondent No.2. The petitioner has also suffered disability as per disability certificate Ext. PW4/A, issued by the Medical Board, perusal of which reveals that she had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 17% with respect to her right lower limb. 12. Now the question, which arises for consideration is as to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled with respect to the injuries suffered by her and also with respect to the disability with regard to her right lower limb. 13. The law with respect to the grant of compensation in injury cases is well-settled. The injured is entitled to pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages also known as special damages are generally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money whereas non-pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The injured is entitled to pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages also known as special damages are generally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money whereas non-pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages, generally include the expenses incurred by the claimants on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/attending, loss of income, loss of earning capacity and other material loss, which may require any special treatment or aid to the insured for the rest of his life. The general damages or the non-pecuniary loss include the compensation for mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, loss of marriage prospects etc. 14. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 , a road accident resulted in 100% disability due to paraplegia below waist to a lawyer. The Supreme Court observed that  no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. 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. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 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. Para-9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “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. Para-9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “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 non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and 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. 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. 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.” 15. In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 , the road accident resulted in 100% permanent disability to a final year engineering student. The Supreme Court held the functional disability to be 70% to compute the loss of earning capacity according to the multiplier method. In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 , the road accident resulted in 100% permanent disability to a final year engineering student. The Supreme Court held the functional disability to be 70% to compute the loss of earning capacity according to the multiplier method. The Supreme Court further held that the whole idea of compensation is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar 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 what he had suffered. Para-10 of the judgment reads as under:- “10. 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. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases- and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Supreme Court laid down the following principles for computation of compensation in injury cases:- "General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('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 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 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. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 , R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 ). 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:- Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, 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. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii)- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii)- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non- pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/ deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors.” 17. In the instant case, perusal of disability certificate Ext.PW4/A reveals that due to fracture of proximal tibia, stiffness had been observed in the knee and ankle and limp in right lower limb of the petitioner. In the instant case, perusal of disability certificate Ext.PW4/A reveals that due to fracture of proximal tibia, stiffness had been observed in the knee and ankle and limp in right lower limb of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that she was working as a helper in M/s Star Com Electronics, however, no evidence has been produced on record, nor any person has been examined from the aforesaid business concern in order to prove that she was working with this business concern. Thus, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence on record, the learned Tribunal below had assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/-, being monthly income of a house-wife. 18. In Arun Kumar Agarwal and another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & others, 2010(9) SCC 218 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents of housewife/mother, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of their services. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “27.It is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of the services rendered by the wife/mother to the family i.e. husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependents, some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of housewife/mother. In that context, the term `services' is required to be given a broad meaning and must be construed by taking into account the loss of personal care and attention given by the deceased to her children as a mother and to her husband as a wife. They are entitled to adequate compensation in lieu of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by the deceased. The amount payable to the dependents cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services to the family which the deceased was giving earlier.” 19. Thus, in view of the material on record, the learned Tribunal below had not committed any illegality in assessing the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/-, being monthly income of a house-wife. 20. Perusal of the impugned award dated 28.08.2015 reveals that the learned Tribunal below had committed an error by adding 50% of the actual income of the deceased while computing her future prospects. 20. Perusal of the impugned award dated 28.08.2015 reveals that the learned Tribunal below had committed an error by adding 50% of the actual income of the deceased while computing her future prospects. It has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi and ors, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , that while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% of the established income to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made. Paras 59.3 and 59.4 of the said judgment read as follows:- “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 21. In the instant case, since the petitioner was aged about 35 years and had no permanent job, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), an addition of 40% of the notional monthly income of the petitioner has to be made towards future prospects as she was aged below 40 years instead of 50% as added by the ld. Tribunal below. Accordingly, after fixing the notional monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- and adding 40% of the monthly income towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.7,000/-per month (5,000+2,000=7,000) and her annual income comes to Rs.84,000/-. 22. Tribunal below. Accordingly, after fixing the notional monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- and adding 40% of the monthly income towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.7,000/-per month (5,000+2,000=7,000) and her annual income comes to Rs.84,000/-. 22. The petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 17% with respect to right lower limb and her the working capacity must have been affected to some extent, therefore, keeping in view the disability suffered by the petitioner, by taking the functional disability to be 17%, the loss of income due to the disability comes to Rs.14,280/-. At the time of the accident, the age of the petitioner was 35 years, as mentioned in the discharge slip Ext. PW2/B-1 and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier of ‘16’ applied by the learned Tribunal below is just and proper. By applying the multiplier of ‘16’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head future loss of income is re-fixed at Rs.2,28,480/- 23. The petitioner had produced on record, cash memos of the medicines and other tests as Ext.PW2/B-4 to Ext. PW2/B-197. She had also produced on record taxi bills Ext. PW5/A-1 to Ext. PW5/A-7 and the learned Tribunal below had rightly awarded a sum of Rs.81,194/- in lieu of the aforesaid expenditure incurred by the petitioner. In addition thereto, the learned Tribunal below had also awarded Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner as damages for pain and sufferings which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal below on these counts. 24. However, the Tribunal below had not awarded any amount under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. This head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused and disability suffered by the petitioner. As per R. D. Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit etc. This head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused and disability suffered by the petitioner. As per R. D. Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit etc. In the present case, keeping in mind these factors as well as the age of the petitioner, since the injury suffered has affected the amenities of life of the petitioner, it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities of life”. 25. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,09,674/-. The remaining terms of the impugned award, including the interest component, shall remain the same. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.