JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20-8-1963 of the Claim Commissioner, respondent No. 2, awarding a compensation of Rs. 8,500/- for the injuries suffered by K.S. Kariyapperuma, respondent No. 1, in the railway accident and also awarding Rs. 265/- towards the loss of goods. 2. The only point raised in the petition is that respondent No. 1 had no income and the education expenses met by his father could not be treated as his income. It is thus contended that he could be awarded only such compensation as is admissible to a person with no monthly salary or income. Subject to an application being made for addition of the ground, the learned Advocate was permitted to raise another point, namely, that the injury suffered by respondent No. 1 merely amounted to partial disablement and not to total disablement. 3. The term "income" has not been defined in the Railways Act, nor in the rules framed thereunder. It must, therefore, be given its ordinary meaning. An income is what one gets. In fact, it can be of various kinds and can include scholarship or amounts received from others. A consideration of the Indian Income Tax Act shall make it clear that the term 'income' includes any kind of income though for purposes of income tax certain kinds of incomes have been exempted and are not computed towards taxable income. 4. Sec. 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, details incomes not included in total income. Receipts of a casual and nonrecurring nature are exempted under sub-sec. (3) while scholarships under sub-sec. (16) . Thus education expenses received from relations, though of the nature of a gift, can be treated as the income of the student. Scholarship is generally granted by a stranger and not a relation. When scholarship is one kind of income, there is no reason why an amount received from relations to meet the expenses of education be not treated in the same manner. 5. I am alive to the factor that a gift should not, in each and every case, be treated as income otherwise a person not earning any money and not doing any work shall be in a position to claim a very high compensation. 5. I am alive to the factor that a gift should not, in each and every case, be treated as income otherwise a person not earning any money and not doing any work shall be in a position to claim a very high compensation. Compensation is meant to compensate an injured person for the loss suffered by him. An injured person will get the same gift, if not more, even after receiving the injuries. Broadly speaking, therefore, gifts cannot, for the purposes of the award of compensation, be treated as income; but this rule cannot be applied to scholarship or amounts received from relations to meet the expenses of education. After completing education the person receiving scholarship or money from his relations is likely to earn much more. Any injury causing permanent disability partial or total is likely to cause a permanent loss to him, and in all fairness he should get suitable compensation for the disablement. 6. To sum up, in the circumstances of the case, tie amount of Rs. 250/- per month received by respondent No. 1 from his father to meet the expenses of education can be treated as his income. 7. As laid down in Part II of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1950, the amount of compensation payable for total disablement of a person whose monthly income is Rs. 250/- is Rs. 8,500/- 8. The claim Commissioner regarded the injury to amount to total disablement, though in fact, as will appear from Part If of the Schedule also, it is merely partial disablement. 9. As laid down in rule 2 (e) of the above Rules the terms "partial disablement" and "total disablement" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Partial disablement of a permanent nature is defined in Section 2 (g) of the Workmen's Compensation Act as a disablement which reduces the earning capacity in every employment which the person was capable of undertaking that time; while total disablement is defined in Section 2 (1) as a disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. A person whose one leg has to be amputated can do work though his earning capacity shall be reduced. A person whose one leg has to be amputated can do work though his earning capacity shall be reduced. Such a person is not incapacitated for all work which be was capable of performing at the time of the accident. Consequently, the disablement of respondent No. 1 was a partial one though of a permanent nature. 10. In Part II of the Schedule to the above Rules loss of leg below the knee has been treated as partial disablement. 11. As laid down in Part II of the Schedule amount of compensation payable for partial disablement is 50% of the amount payable under Part I for total disablement, and hence shall be Rs. 4,250/- only. 12. In his claim respondent No. I referred to the loss of goods but omitted to make a specific claim 'in the last paragraph. A lay man can commit such a mistake. Consequently, I am not inclined to disallow the compensation for the loss of goods. The award of Rs. 265/- towards this item is maintained. 13. The Writ Petition is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order of the Claim Commissioner is quashed to the extent of Rs. 4,250/-. In other words, the petitioner shall be liable to pay Rs. 4,250/- to respondent No. 1 as compensation for the injuries suffered by him and another sum of Rs. 256/- towards the loss of goods. Costs easy. , Stay order is vacated.