JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated 08.11.2004 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.103 of 25.07.2002 decided by the MACT, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) on account of injuries suffered by appellant in a motor vehicular accident with a vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned MACT:-

“1. Whether the claimant sustained multiple injuries in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 while he was driving vehicle no.HR-37-1367?OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to end from whom of the respondents?OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving licence, if so, its effect? OPR

3. Relief.”s

4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,17,500/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident occurred on 22.05.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending truck no.HR-37-1367, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and all the respondents have been held liable to pay compensation to claimant jointly & severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with.

Assessment of Compensation under Issue No.2

8. For assessment of compensation, Courts have consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma, it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far as possible. Key aspects of this principle, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Courts from time to time, include assessment of just compensation. It is also well settled that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a ‘Pittance’. It is also well settled that compensation should cover both pecuniary damages (actual medical expenses, loss of wages/income, loss of future earning capacity) as well as non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life). The determination of non-pecuniary damages, such as pain and sufferings, cannot be calculated with mathematical precision, but must be based on a judicious approach considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The core objective is to put the injured/victim party in the same position he would have been in if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing nominal financial relief. The law relating to the grant of compensation in cases of injury leading to permanent disability is by now well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in 2011 ACJ 1 titled Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another,