The main legal point established is the requirement for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to follow well-settled principles for the assessment of compensation under pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, ensuring proper calculations and reasoning.

1. This appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the award dated 12-07-2010 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. T.S.(MAC) 56 of 2009 whereby he awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The undisputed facts are that the claimant suffered a head injury in a motor vehicle accident. Due to this head injury he suffered loss of vision in one eye to the extent of 30%. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) claiming compensation and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,60,000/- under the following heads:-

3. At the outset, it may be noticed that the learned Tribunal has not followed the well settled principles relating to grant of compensation. No calculations have been made and lump sum figures have been awarded without even a sentence being written as to why this amount and not some other amount is being awarded. The figures 50,000/-, 10,000/- and 1,00,000/- could have been easily replaced by 5,00,000/-, 1,00,000/- and 10,00,000/- or by 5,000/-, 1,000/- and 10,000/- without adding or subtracting a word in the reasoning. That is not the way in which compensation has to be assessed. There are well settled principles for assessment of compensation and these principles must be followed by all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.

4. It is well settled law that in a case of injuries compensation is awarded under two heads; pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. Under the head of pecuniary damages, the expenses of treatment, attendants, special diet, transportation, hospitalization will be covered. Under the head of pecuniary losses, the claimant will also be entitled to the amount of income which he has actually lost due to his being unable to attend his work and in case, the injury has caused a permanent disability, then the future loss of income shall also have to be considered. Under the head of non-pecuniary damages, normally damages will be awarded under the head of pain and suffering and in cases of permanent disability also for loss of amenities of life and future discomfort in life. In cases where the claimant is a young unmarried person and the injuries affect his marital prospects, damages for loss of marital prospects can also be awarded.

5. Following the aforesaid principles, I now proceed to assess the compensation afresh because unfortunately the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not even care to consider the evidence or decide how he has come to the conclusions. The fact remains that the claimant remained admitted as an indoor patient in hospital from 09.8.2008 to 19.8.2008, i.e. for a period of 10(ten) days. He would have been attended upon by two attendants at least and even in the year 2008 the cost of one attendant is taken to be Rs.200/- per day, the cost of two attendants at Rs.400/- for 10 days comes to Rs.4,000/- and, therefore, he is awarded Rs.4,000/- as cost of attendants.

6. The medical evidence on record further shows that the claimant had to undergo a CT-Scan in Agartala. Thereafter, he was treated as an outdoor patient for a long period of time in Agartala till January, 2009. Since his condition did not improve, the claimant went to Guwahati to show himself to the doctors at Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya on 13.11.2008. He also went to the Lions Eye Hospital at Silchar on 24.10.2008. He has also consulted the doctors at Silchar Medical College & Hospital at Silchar on 25.10.2008 and 15.06.2009. Thereafter, he went to the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 14.11.2008. He has now been assessed as having suffered loss of vision of