PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) THE appeal under Section 173 of the M. V. Act 1988 is directed against the award dated 01. 02. 2006.

( 2 ) ON 13. 6. 2001, injured Vijay Kumar Mittal, 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, Harpreet Singh.

( 3 ) VIDE award dated 01. 02. 2006, Tribunal has directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 9,39,045/- to the injured. Break up of the compensation awarded is as folldws:-

(i ) Medical expenses Rs. 1,00,000/- (ii) Conveyance and Attendant expenses Rs . ? 20,000/- (iii) Special Diet Rs . ? 10,000/- (iv) Physical Disfigurement & Loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-

amenities of life

(v) Pain and agony Rs . 50,000/- (vi) Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,000/- (vii) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 5,59,045/- Total Rs. 9,39,045/-

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

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

( 6 ) INJURED was aged 23 years as on the date of the accident. He was a scrap dealer.

( 7 ) ON account of injuries sustained by the injured, his right leg was amputated below the knee and a rod was inserted in his left leg. Permanent disability was assessed at 60%. A Jaipur foot was fitted on his amputated leg.

( 8 ) IT is an admitted fact that the injured was hospitalized thrice. e. , from 13. 6. 2001 to 16. 6. 2001 at Umkal Hospital, from 23. 6. 2001 to 26. 6. 2001 at Parnami Orthopedic Hospital and from 26. 6. 2001 to 26. 8. 2001 at 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 ) PECUNIARY loss may include the following:- (iv) Cost of future care and other expenses.

( 14 ) NON pecuniary loss may 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. e. , on account of injury the injured may not be able to walk, run or sit etc. (iv) Loss of expectation of life. e. , on account of injury normal longevity of the life of the person concerned is shortened. (v) Disfigurement. (vi) Discomfort or inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.

( 15 ) AS noted herein