- (1.) Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for the enhancement of the compensation, against the judgment and order dated 27.05.1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raebareli, in Claim Petition No.9 of 1985. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.1984, at about 12.30 p.m., the appellant-Sri Krishna Chandra Hasani was going on in Ambassador Car No. UHF-9899 from Raebareli to Allahabad to participate in a marriage ceremony. When the car reached near Chandoi Chauraha, Babugunj, from the opposite direction, a Truck bearing No. UTD-837 was coming, whose driver was driving it rashly and negligently and dashed the right side of the Ambassador car, which resulted the damage to the car and serious injuries to the claimant along with other occupants of the car. The claimant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, who after examining the entire evidence has awarded the total compensation of Rs.51,143/-. Not being satisfied, the appellant-claimant has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri Kapish Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation is meager one. He also submits that the Tribunal has wrongly considered that the accident happened due to the contributory negligence. He submits that for the accident, the truck was solely responsible. He also submits that the medical expenses incurred by the appellant were not properly examined by the Tribunal. The claimant suffered 30% disability. Lastly, he made a request that the compensation may kindly be enhanced. On the other hand, Sri Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3-Insurance Company has justified the impugned order. He relied on the ratio laid down in the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR(SC) 755 , where it was observed that:- "... Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is 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 the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain 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 injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident happened in the year 1984, which governed by the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, though the award has been given by the Tribunal in the year 1998. So, the Second Schedule of Section 163A is not applicable in the instant case. There was a "head on collision" between the vehicles. The truck was a heavy vehicle in comparison to the car. So, the liability was rightly fixed in the ratio of 40:60% between the car and truck. Both the drivers were holding a valid driving licence. On the date of accident, the truck was insured by the opposite party no. 3-Insurance Company. On the date of the accident, the policy was alive. FIR was also lodged. So, the insurance-company is solely responsible to pay the compensation, as has been observed by the Tribunal. The claimant paid income tax of Rs.165/- for the assessment year 1983-84. This was taken into consideration and the income shown in the tax return was taken by the Tribunal for the purpose of computation of the compensation. No other source of income was proved by the claimant-appellant. When it is so, then we decline to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. In the instant case, the compensation was awarded for fatal injuries, nourishing of diet, loss of income from the business, physical and mental agony and family disturbance on account of the accident. When it is so, then, the same appears reasonable. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The same is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein. Needless to mention that in the case of Helen Co. Rebellow vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 1998 AIR(SC) 3191 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that compensation is not a source of profit or earning. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed, as stated above.;