Shri Deepak Gupta, C.J.

1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation by the claimant/Appellant is directed against the award dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 517 of 2002, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,19,000/- to the claimant.

2. The undisputed facts are that an accident took place on 29.8.2001. In this accident, the claimant suffered injuries and the main injury was fracture to the left hip joint. He was admitted in the hospital on 29.8.2001 and remained admitted there upto 26.9.2001. During his stay in the hospital, he was operated by Dr. Iqbal Parvez (PW-2) on 4.9.2001 and a surgical implant was inserted in his hip joint. The disability has been assessed at 40%. The Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant/Appellant at Rs. 15,000/- per year and assessed compensation accordingly.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Claims Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of the Appellant only at Rs. 15,000/- per year. She submits that the Appellant was aged about 42 years and it was his evidence that he used to work as Munshi and go to various shops to maintain their accounts. The Learned Claims Tribunal was of the view that since none of the owner of the shops where the Appellant/claimant was working as Munshi was produced, no reliance can be placed on the same. Even if that be so, one has to consider this fact that the claimant/Appellant was aged about 42 years and he had a family to support. He was an able bodied person and even in the year 2001, the income of any able bodied person would not be less than Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per day. The Supreme Court has also held that where the claimant is aged between 40 to 50 years, 30% must be added to his income on account of future prospects. Even if a very conservative view is taken, a labourer in the year 2001 would have been earning Rs. 150/- per day, but a labourer may not earn on each and every day. Therefore, I assess monthly income of the claimant/Appellant at Rs. 3,500/- per month. Adding 30% for future prospects, the figure works out to Rs. 4,550/- per month, which is rounded off to Rs. 4,500/- per month.

4. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in rupees and paisa.

5. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation