The assessment of compensation in motor accident cases involving personal injuries should consider both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, taking into account the nature and extent of the disability, the victim's age, and any unusual deprivation suffered.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

(1) This appeal is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 7th June, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District- 24-Parganas (South) and Fast Track Court-III, Alipore, in M.A.C. Case No.171 of 2006 thereby disposing of the proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-as compensation for the injury caused to the appellant. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the said amount within two months with the stipulation that in default of such payment within the said period, the amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application (7th January, 2003) till realisation in full.

(2) Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal.

(3) There is no dispute as regards the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident resulting in the injury to the claimant and the fact that due to fault on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. According to the claimant, she was an assistant teacher of a secondary school having qualification of M.A. (Bengali) with B.Ed. and was aged 28 years at the time of accident. Her net salary at the time of accident was Rs.9,327/- a month. In the application, she claimed a total amount of Rs.11 lakh as compensation including the amount spent for medical treatment. It appears from the medical certificate issued by the doctor that due to the accident she became permanent disabled to the extent of 50%.

(4) The learned Tribunal below on consideration of the materials on record awarded total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as detailed below: 1) Pecuniary Damages:-Medical Expenses Rs.1,29,630/-Loss of present earning Rs. 11,200/-Loss of future earning Rs. NIL Loss of earning capacity Rs. 40,000/-Nursing charges Rs. 84,000/- Conveyance Charges Rs. 30,000/- 2) Non-pecuniary damages: Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-Loss of amenities of life Rs. 40,000/ Rs.3,74,910/-Less: u/s. 140 of the M.V. Act Rs. 25,000/Rs.3,49,910/-=Rs.3,50,000/- in round figure.

(5) Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal. Mr. Banik, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently contended before us that out of the amount of Rs.3,74,900/-, a sum of Rs.2,43,370/- had already been spent by the claimant towards medical expenses, nursing charges and conveyance charges. According to Mr. Banik, the Tribunal has really awarded a sum of Rs.1,31,630/- as compensation if we deduct the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,43,370/-from the total amount. Mr. Banik contends that the appellant having been found to be permanently disabled to the extent of 50% and due to such disablement, she being even unable to perform her marital obligations towards her husband, the Tribunal below should have awarded the claim made by the appellant. Mr. Banik contends that in view of the permanent disability, the span of her life has also been reduced and at the same time, for this disability, she is even unable to go for a better job. He, therefore, prays for enhancement of the amount.

(6) Mr. Pahari, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, on the other hand, opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that even after the accident, the appellant is doing the same job of assistant teacher of the school and it appears that there has been further increment of her salary. In other words, Mr. Pahari contends that for the accident, the appellant has not financially suffered in anyway and her actual expenditure towards medical treatment has already been paid through the award. Mr. Pahari submits that in the facts of the present case there is no just cause for enhancement of the amount towards the alleged claim for better prospect in life and in fact, the learned T