The main legal point established in the judgment is the principles for assessing compensation in injury cases, including the consideration of future medical treatment, loss of amenities of life, and pain and suffering.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 27th December, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T. Petition No. 36S/2 of 2009, titled as Mahesh versus Prince and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,98,805/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”).

2. The respondents in the claim petition, i.e. the insurer, ownerinsured and driver of the offending vehicle, have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

3. The claimant-injured has questioned the impugned award only on the ground of adequacy of compensation.

4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – whether the amount awarded is inadequate? The answer is in the affirmative for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

5. The claimant-injured invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation, as per the breakups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of the motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Rajinder Kumar, while driving vehicle, bearing registration No. HP01B0320, rashly and negligently, on 30th September, 2008, at about 5.00 P.M. near Shalaghat, Tehsil Arki, in which the claimant-injured sustained injuries.

6. The claim petition was resisted by the ownerinsured and the insurer of the offending vehicle on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. It is apt to record herein that the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded against exparte.

7. The entire controversy involved in this appeal relates to adequacy of compensation, thus, there is no need to reproduce the issues framed by the Tribunal herein.

8. The Tribunal has made discussions to this effect in paras 13 to 19 of the impugned award.

9. The perusal of the record does disclose that the claimant-injured remained admitted at IGMC, Shimla, with effect from 30th September, 2008 to 20th November, 2008. The disability certificate is also on the record as Ext. PW4/A, in terms of which the claimant-injured has suffered 40% permanent disability qua left leg.

10. The claimant-injured has examined Dr. Sandeep Kashyap as PW4, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which has issued the disability certificate, has specifically stated that the injury suffered by the claimant-injured, which is permanent in nature, has resulted in shortening his left leg.

11. It is beaten law of land that in an injury case, the compensation is to be awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads by making guess work.

12. My this view is fortified by the judgments made by the Apex Court in the cases titled as R.D. Hattangadi versus M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6085, Ramchandrappa versus The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4787, and Kavita versus Deepak and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4771.

13. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases.

14. Admittedly, the claimant-injured was ten years of age at the time of the accident and was a student. Because of the disability, he will not be able to seek appointment in armed forces or get the job of his choice after attaining the age of majority. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs. 40,000/- per annum, which is not legally and factually correct.

15. By guess work, it can be safely held that the claimant-injured would have been earning not less than Rs. 5,000/- per month even as a labourer after attaining the age of majority. The claimant-injured has suffered 40% permanent disability. Thus, it is held tha