PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal under Section 173 of the M. V. Act 1988 is directed against the award dated 9. 2. 2005.

( 2 ) ON 30. 11. 2003, injured Satish Kumar, sustained serious injuries in a road accident stated to be caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to. the respondent-No. 3, Nand Kishore.

( 3 ) VIDE award dated 9. 2. 2005, Tribunal has directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 10,34,850/- to the injured. Break up of the compensation awarded is as follows:-

(i ) Medical reimbursement Rs . ?? 25,000/- (ii) Pain and suffering Rs . 1,00,000/- (iii) Permanent disability/loss Rs . 2,00,000/-

of amenities

(iv) Loss of earning capacity Rs . 6,76,350/- (v) Conveyance/attendant charges Rs . ?? ? 7,500/- (vi) Future treatment/artificial implant Rs . ?? ? 1,000/- (vii) Loss of marriage prospects Rs . ?? 25,000/- Total Rs. 10,34,850/-

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal.

( 5 ) SINCE the only issue inyolved relates to quantum of compensation, I shall only be noting such facts as are relevant for adjudication of said issue.

( 6 ) INJURED was aged 26 years as on the date of the accident. He was a daily wager.

( 7 ) ON account of injuries sustained by the injured, his right leg was amputated below the knee. Permanent disability was assessed at 60%.

( 8 ) IT is an admitted fact that the injured was hospitalized for the period 30. 11. 2003 to 24. 2. 2004 in Safdarjung Hospital.

( 9 ) IN the light of afore noted backdrop facts, I shall determine the fairness of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal.

( 10 ) 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 injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages.

( 11 ) THE general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the Court should award to injured person such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries.

( 12 ) 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 non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money. Whereas, non pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations.

( 13 ) AS noted herein above, damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and non pecuniary damages. In the instant case, tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,09,850/- under the head 'pecuniary damages' and Rs. 3,25,,000/- under the head 'non-pecuniary damages'. I shall deal with each head separately. Non-pecuniary Damages:

( 14 ) TRIBUNAL has awarded Rs. 3,25,000/- under this head. Break-up of the compensation awarded under this head is as follows:-

(i ) Pain and suffering Rs . 1,00,000/- (ii) Permanent disability/loss Rs . 2,00,000/-

of amenities of life

(iii) Loss of marriage prospects Rs . 25,000/-

( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is excessive. He particularly stresses that award of Rs. 2,00,000/- for permanent disabili