The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for injuries, particularly the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the factors considered in determining the appropriate compensation.

J. C. VERMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by injured-claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded vide award dated 30. 6. 1998 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Kotputli, District Jaipur, in M. A. C. T. Case No. 370 of 1993.

( 2 ) FOR the reason that the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation, therefore, there is hardly any necessity to discuss any other aspect of the case.

( 3 ) THE claimant-injured sustained injuries in accident on 11. 4. 1992 when he was hit by truck No. HR 26-3665. After framing the necessary issues in regard to the negligence, accident and about quantum of compensation, the award has been passed. The Tribunal had found that the injured had suffered the injuries of dislocation and breaking of three teeth, amputation of left arm above elbow with 81 per cent permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal had found that injured-claimant was earning rs. 1,200 per month. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,00,000 for loss of teeth and amputation of left hand. Apart from above the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 10,000 for medical expenses, Rs. 10,000 for pain and mental agony and Rs. 50,000 for loss of future income. The total compensation was awarded as Rs. 2,70,000.

( 4 ) THE present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. It is the contention of counsel for the appellant that this court in almost similar case wherein the injured had suffered 50 per cent permanent disability had awarded Rs. 3,00,000 for non-pecuniary damages vide order dated 12. 10. 2000 in Norat Mal v. Latur lal, 2002 ACJ 2066 (Rajasthan ).

( 5 ) RELIANCE has been made on the Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh high Court in case of Gandhari Ramesh v. Janardhan, 1999 ACJ 816 (AP) and on a judgment of this court in case of United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sirajuddin, 1999 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan ).

( 6 ) IN case of Gandhari Ramesh, 1999 acj 816 (AP), the oil tanker had bumped against right side portion of bus coming from opposite direction resulting in severance of right arm from the shoulder of a passenger in the bus. The Tribunal had held that the accident was caused due to composite negligence of both the drivers. The injured was 23 years old and was trained electrician. It was held that right hand had been amputated and the prospect of even going in for an artificial limb is bleak. The prospect of getting married and leading a normal family life had also become bleak. It was doubtful whether the injured could take up any other profitable employment with his left hand. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 1,33,000, which was enhanced to Rs. 3,66,000. The accident occurred in May, 1993.

( 7 ) IN case of United India Insurance co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 895 (Rajasthan), in case of amputation of left hand with 50 per cent permanent disablement the amount rs. 3,00,000 has been awarded as non-pecuniary special damages apart from the medical expenses, etc. The accident was caused in March, 1994 between two trucks.

( 8 ) IN case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Supreme Court had held that the 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 claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earnings or profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as 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 inj