AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

The above appeal is directed against the order of the award and decree dated April 26, 1996 and made in O.P. No. 1483 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras). The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent is the claimant. He filed the above O.P. claming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident occurred on January 25, 1993 in which the vehicle belonging to the second respondent, insured with the appellant, was involved. 2. The insurance company filed counter statement and contended that the accident has occurred only due to the negligent driving of the motor cycle by the first respondent and the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the same and in any event the compensation claimed is highly excessive and Imaginary. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,51,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed the above appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry is in correct and also questioning the granting of huge compensation of Rs. 8,51,000 for the injuries, which according to the insurance company is without any basis. The first respondent herein, who is the claimant before the Tribunal filed the cross objection 148 of 1996 claiming the balance of compensation. According to the cross objector, the Tribunal ought to have sympathized with the plight of the victim and also the plight of the young wife of the claimant who 49 lost their sexual life and ought to have awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 as prayed for instead of Rs. 2,50,000 awarded on that head. Likewise, the award of the Tribunal is also challenged on the ground that the pain and suffering caused on the cross-objector is not only a past one but also one of perpetual nature and as such, the claim of Rs. 2,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. Likewise, the Tribunal ought to have seen that the permanent disability suffered by the claimant is at 125% rounded to 100% as the disablement shall not exceed 100%. It is in evidence that even for shifting him from bed to wheel chair, the claimant needs another persons help. It is also in evidence that the lower limbs are mutilated and therefore the Lower Court ought to have awarded Rs. 3,00,000 under this head as prayed instead of Rs. 2,00,000. The award of the lower Court was also challenged on other grounds.3. The case of the claimant in short is as follows :

The claimant was riding a motorcycle TN-23-Z-5643 along Poonamallee High Road. When he was proceeding towards Koyambedu near Mettukulam, the lorry TNH 8397 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction, at its extreme right side and dashed against the claimant and fled away, whereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The accident is solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. Therefore the Respondents 1 and 2 as the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant with interest and costs.

4. The claim of the claimant was resisted by the insurance company. According to them, the accident has occurred only due to the negligent driving of the motor cycle by the claimant and the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the alleged accident. In any event the alleged injuries are simple in nature, that they are not liable to pay any compensation as the alleged accident has occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant in riding his motorcycle and that the driver of the lorry was not responsible for the same. In any event, the compensation claimed is highly excessive, imaginary and not sustainable in law. Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined on the side of the claimant and Exs. P1 to P13 were marked. None was examined on the side of the insurance company and no documentary evidence was also let in on the side of the insurance company or the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal on a perusal of Exs. A-6, A12 and A13 and also of the evidence of the P.Ws, came to the conclusion that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the lorry driver. It is also in evidence that the lorry driver Mr. Karumakaran has pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court, and paid a sum of Rs. 1,350 by way of fine. Ex. P. 12, dated May 10, 1993 is the chargesheet. It is mentioned in the chargesheet that on January 25, 1993 the accused (Karunakaran, the lorry driver) drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, came from East to West i.e., from Madras towards Poonamallee and hit against the rider of motorcycle who came from Poonamallee side and fled away from the scene without informing the police. In this, the motorcycle rider has sustained serious injuries. The motorcycle also has sustained damage and thereby the accused committed an offence liable to be punished under Secs. 279 and 338 I.P.C. read with See. 134(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicles Act. Ex. P-13 is the Extract of the summary trial Register in S.T.C. No. 1828 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee. The accused/ driver Karunakaran pleaded guilty for the offences under Secs. 279, 338, I.P.C. read with See. 134(a) and (h) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee convicted and sentenced the accused and imposed a fine of Rs. 500, Rs. 750 and Rs. 100 for the offences under Secs. 279 and 338 I.P.C. and Sec. 134(a) and (h) of the Motor Vehicles Act respectively and directed him to pay the fine immediately, failing which the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Ex. P10 Is the First information Report filed on January 25, 1993 against the lorry driver and Ex. P11 is the Sketch, Exs.P-10, P-12 and P-13 coupled with the evidence let in by the P.W.s would clearly establish that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving (if the vehicle by the driver. Therefore, we confirm the finding of the Tribunal and answer this issue against the insurer and the insured.5. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000 towards loss of income for one year, Rs. 8,000 for transport, Rs. 5,000 for nourishment, Rs. 1,00,000 for pain and suffering and mental agony, Rs. 50,000 for mental agony, Rs. 2,00,000 for disability and Rs. 2,50,000 for loss of family life, Rs. 2,000 towards cost of cloth and materials and Rs. 2,00,000 for loss of earning power, in all amounting to Rs. 8,51,000 Ex. P-8 is the Disability Certificate. It is mentioned in Ex.P-8 that the disablement is permanent and the disability is assessed as 100% only. Dr. K. Chandran, Medical Officer has signed the said certificate. It is not disputed that the accident took Place on January 25, 1993. It cannot also be disputed that the accident was solely due to the rest and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the first respondent and because of the accident, the claimant has sustained multiple fractures and was admitted in the Royapettah Government Hospital. PX. I is the certificate to show that he was taking treatment in the said hospital. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was taking treatment in the hospital from January 25, 1993 to May 8, 1993 and that he attended hearings with the help of a wheel chair only. It is his evidence that him spinal has broken and the entire body below the hip is functionless and senseless. It is also his evidence that the passing of urine and motion is out of his control. The medical evidence also discloses that he is unfit for sexual lift any more and lie was also not able to sit or stand Band because of the multiple grievous injuries and fractures, he will not be able to work any more. It is his evidence that lie was ill aged 34 years on the date of accident Ex. P-4 has been filed to show that he was earning a sum of Rs. 240 to Rs. 250 per day through video and audio cassette recording and because of the permanent disability, he will not be able to move about and even to move from wheel chair or from the bed to the wheel chair, he needs the help of others. In the cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit his oral testimony which is cogent and convincing. He denied the suggestion that he was not running business. P.W. 3 is one Dr. K. Chandran, Additional Professor, Government Hospital. His evidence corroborates the evidences of P.W. 1 on the question of permanent disability which is 100% in this case. As already stated, no evidence oral or documentary has been let in on the side of the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company. Therefore, the evidence let in on the side of the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company. Therefore, the evidence let in by the claimant both oral and documentary remain uncontroverted. Though the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 by way of of compensation, he has restricted his claim to Rs. 10,00,000. It is contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that the claimant has not filed proof to prove his income. It is also contended by Mr. Rosi Naidu that the Tribunal has erred in granting another sum of Rs. 50,000 for mental agony inspite of the fact that the earlier compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 includes mental agony also. Likewise, the Tribunal has erred In granting a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 for the permanent disability and at the same time, another sum of Rs. 2,00,000 for loss of earning power, which amounts to double compensation. Lastly, it is contended that if the huge compensation granted with interest is deposited it would fetch interest of Rs. 15,000 per month, which is five times of the alleged Income fixed by the Tribunal on presumption and assumption. We have all been noticing that the permanent disability is assessed as 100%. It Is very clearly established that the claimant because of the permanent disability always needs assistance of another person throughout his life. Because of the permanent disability, he Is not able to move about, and his both legs have become senseless and he is able to pass urine and motion only through the tubes and the tubes have to he cleaned frequently with the help and assistance of another person. Therefore, in this case, the injured claimant is not only suffering because of his permanent disability, but also makes others suffer throughout his life. He is always in need of a wheel chair to move about. He needs assistance of another person to move from the bed to the wheel chair and from the wheel chair to the bed . Above all, it is in evidence that he is unfit for sexual life throughout his life.6. It is well settled that a person injured by anothers wrong is entitled to general damages for non-pecuniary loss, such a.%, pain and suffering, past and future and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. Such damages constitute a conventional sum. By the very nature of things, there can be no precise yardstick by which compensation payable under such beads can be assesed and determined. This is a head of claim, which is impossible to quantify in monetary terms. The only thing that can he said is that it is some solace to the injured, that he is alive. While awarding compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age (in this case 34 years) the unusual deprivation he has suffered throughout his life and the effect oil his future fife. In the instant case, the claimant was carrying on business of video and audio recording of cassettes. Because of the accident, he has been crippled for ever and could move tinly on wheel chair. Having regard to the nature and extent of injury suffered by the claimant in the instant case and the totality (if the circumstances that have arisen as a consequence thereof, it would be just and reasonable to hold that the claimant Is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation under the beads pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. So far as the expenses Incurred towards the medical treatment and to the miscellaneous expenses are concerned. we are of the view that the Tribunal has awarded &A sum of Rs. 8000 for transport, Rs. 5,000 for nourishment and Rs. 36,000 towards loss of incline for one year. There is no reason flair us to disbelieve version of the claimant on these claims. The claimant had a prolonged period of hospitalisation and therefore it would be legitimate to infer the expenses that have been incurred both on transportation and medicines, besides other items such its nutritional food, etc. P.W. 1 has deposed that he has been carrying on business and he was earning an income of Rs. 240 to Rs. 250 per day. He was also to pay a rent of Rs. 600 per month. ExP-4 Is the rental Agreement. As already stated, there is no contra evidence let in by the respondents either oral or documentary. Therefore, the evidence let in by the claimant both oral and documentary remains uncontroverted.7. Coming to the award of compensation under the head, permanent disability, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly granted a sum of Rs. 2,00,00 for disability. However, we are unable to confirm the finding of the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 for loss of earning power, which amounts to double compensation. However, in our opinion the claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of marital life.

8. As a result of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that in the instant case, the compensation is awarded under different heads, as follows :

Please see the table in the end of this case.

9. Thus the claimant would be entitled to Rs. 6,49,000 by way of compensation under the 1 above head together with interest at 12% from the date of petition till payment. The order and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to the above extent. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

10. We see no merit in the cross objection and therefore the Cross Objection No. 148 of 1996 is dismissed without costs.

Compensation under the Heads Rs.

(1) Pain and suffering and Loss of amenities 3,00,000

(2) Expenses incurred towards 13,000 nourishment, transport etc.

(3) Loss of income for one year 36,000

(4) Permanent Disability 2,00,000

(5) Loss of marital life 1,00,000

Total 6,49,000