P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) HE must start this judgment with a frank confession. There are cases in which Judges often feel intensely even if they do not say so expressly that it is quite impossible to make adequate compensation in terms of money for the tragic consequences of the injury lasting for the life-time of the surviving victim of an accident for money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered and alleviate the pain and suffering and restore the lost pleasure sad enjoyment of life. The feeling is bound to be all the more deep and earnest when the victim is a young boy the course of whose whole life is fundamentally affected as a result of the disabilities flowing from the accident. The Court must still assess the compensation however bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances of the case as they are known upto the time of the trial and as far as they can for the future be reasonably foreseen guided by the overall consideration that the injured person should be given a sum even if it appears to some minds to be daunting in its immensity which would ensure that he would not within reason want for anything that money could buy and would be able to live for the rest of his life in comfort and enjoyment comparable as nearly as possible with that which would have been his but for the accident ( 2 ) THE appellant herein is a young boy aged about 12 now and aged about 7 at the time of the accident. The accident occurred at about 9 A. M. on 18/07/1975 The site of the accident was near the railway crossing at the Sardar Patel Colony Ahmedabad. The appellant who was at the material time studying in the third standard in the Sanskar School situate in the Sardar Patel Colony was proceeding towards the school and was walking on the correct side of the road just by the side of the foot-path. Motor Cycle No. G. J. F. 3537 owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent came from behind at an excessive speed and knocked down the appellant. The appellant became unconscious and started bleeding from the left ear. He was immediately removed to the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital. The medical examination revealed an injury to the brain. Motor Cycle No. G. J. F. 3537 owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent came from behind at an excessive speed and knocked down the appellant. The appellant became unconscious and started bleeding from the left ear. He was immediately removed to the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital. The medical examination revealed an injury to the brain. While in the hospital he underwent two operations. The first operation was performed on the day of admission to relieve him of the difficulty of respiration. Another operation was performed on 23/07/1975 in connection with the brain injury. He was also examined by an Bye Surgeon as it was noticed that there was abscess formation in the right eye due to the brain injury which ultimately resulted in loss of vision. He remained as an indoor patient in the hospital upto 29/09/1975 that is to say for a period of about 2 months and 10 days. During the period of hospitalization he was unconscious for about 15 days and semi-conscious for about 20 days. ( 3 ) TWO months after his discharge from the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital the appellant was admitted as an indoor patient in the Nagri Eye Hospital on 2/12/1975 An operation for transplantation of cornea of the right-eye was performed but it was not successful. Though the whole eye was disorganized and there was complete loss of Vision the eye-ball could be maintained. He was discharged from the said hospital on 30/12/1975 ( 4 ) ON November 21 1975 the claim aoplication out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellant through his guardian and next friend claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 0 0 In the claim application heads of compensation were not separately mentioned However at the trial the claim for damages was advanced and specified under different heads such as medical and special diet expenses nursing charges post-hospitalization attendance and transportation charges pain and suffering loss of enjoyment and amenities of life and pecuniary loss. Tbe Tribunal awarded a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 37 557 as per the following particulars:the Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6 0/o per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the presentation of the claim application till payment and costs. Tbe Tribunal awarded a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 37 557 as per the following particulars:the Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 6 0/o per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the presentation of the claim application till payment and costs. The award was made against the first and second respondents but the third respondent (insurer) was directed to satisfy the award. The present appeal is directed against the said award and the claim in appeal is confined to Rs. 62 443 being the amount of claim disallowed by the Tribunal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) IT would be convenient to summarize at this stage the effect of the totality of the evidence on the issue of the injuries and after-effects of such injuries on the life and career of the appellant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) THE external injuries found on the person of the appellate soon after his admission in the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital were as follows :1 Abrasion on the left knee region 3 x 3. 2 Abrasion on the right knee and right ankle 1 in diameter. 3 Haematoma 3 x 1/2 behind left ear. 4 Contused lacerated wound on the left parieto-occipital region 1 x 114. There was no fracture on any part of the body including the skull. ( 7 ) THE internal injury sustained by the appellant was on the brain. As soon as he was knocked down he was rendered unconscious and started bleeding from the left ear. His clinical examination at the Hospital revealed that he did not respond to painful stimulus. His pupils were bilateral semi-diluted and they reacted sluggishly. Eye remained unconscious for about 15 days after his admission and thereafter for a period of about 20 days he was semi-conscious. As he was experiencing difficulty in respiration he was operated upon on 18/07/1975 Another operation was performed upon him on 23/07/1975 for his brain injury. All throughout the period of his hospitalization he suffered intense pain. Eye remained unconscious for about 15 days after his admission and thereafter for a period of about 20 days he was semi-conscious. As he was experiencing difficulty in respiration he was operated upon on 18/07/1975 Another operation was performed upon him on 23/07/1975 for his brain injury. All throughout the period of his hospitalization he suffered intense pain. When he was discharged from the hospital on 29/09/1975 the appellant was in the process of recovery though there was weakness of limbs. He was unable to walk and to speak properly. ( 8 ) EVEN while he was confined in the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital it was noticed that the appellants right eye had initially turned reddish and his eye-ball gradually turned white. This was due to abscess formation consequent upon the brain injury. An Eye-Surgeon who examined the appellant at the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital prescribed some treatment but it was of no avail. By the time he was discharged from the hospital he had lost his vision of the right eye. ( 9 ) ON 2/12/1975 the appellant was admitted as an indoor patient at the Nagri Eye Hospital. On clinical examination it was found that he had infected perforated corneal ulcer. He was operated upon for transplantation of cornea. The operation as expected was not successful so far as regaining of vision is concerned because the whole eye was disorganised. However the operation ensured retention of the eye-ball had its only purpose therefore was cosmetic. After the corneal operation the graft became wide. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on 30/12/1975 ( 10 ) AT or about the time of the trial that is to say about two years after the accident the appellant was found to hove weakness and loss of coordination of the upper left limb and the lower left limb. He was experiencing difficulty in speech and required outside help in day to day life. He was limping and could not walk on uneven surface. It was observed that it would he difficult for him to hold glass of water or to pick up safety-pin from the ground or to switch on and to switch off light or to button his clothes with the use of his left hand. All this was on account of spastic hemiplegia i. e. paralysis limited to one side of the body and loss of controlling influence due to spasm. All this was on account of spastic hemiplegia i. e. paralysis limited to one side of the body and loss of controlling influence due to spasm. The permanent disability is assessed at 40 0/o for the upper left limb and 30 0/o for the lower left limb. The faculty of memory was also found to have been affected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 11 ) THOUGH the evidence on record indicated that beside the loss of vision there was some disfigurement of the face as a result of the eyeball of the right eye turning white we thought it proper to view the appellant in order to assess the extent of disfigurement in respect of which the evidence is not satisfactory and in regard to which the Tribunal has not given any specific finding It is perfectly legitimate to undertake such visual examination and the Court of Appeal in England appears to be following such course in certain cases (see for example Mason v. Mason (1966) 1 W. L. R. 767 ). Although the question of disagreement and of the extent of disfigurement is somewhat difficult and not easy to resolve since we have had the advantage of seeing the injured appellant we found that there is a marked disfigurement of the face of the appellant on account of the eye-ball bulging out of the socket and turning opaque white. We also found that the effect of hemiplegia was evident even upto the date of the hearing of the appeal because the grip of the left hand was weak and the gait was not absolutely normal. ( 12 ) AGAINST this background let us now turn to the question of assessment of damages. 1 Medical and special diet expenses and nursing and transportation charges. The appellants father in the course of his deposition stated that he had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 7557. 00under the aforesaid combined head. He produced at Ex 26 details of the expenditure incurred by him under various sub-heads. The following are the broad particulars of the expenditure incurred under different sub-heads as set out in the said document:as earlier stated the Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3557. 00 under this combined head. The claim which the Tribunal disallowed related to the attendants salary (Rs. The following are the broad particulars of the expenditure incurred under different sub-heads as set out in the said document:as earlier stated the Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3557. 00 under this combined head. The claim which the Tribunal disallowed related to the attendants salary (Rs. 2250/-) and loss of six weeks salary income of father for providing services to the appellant (Rs. 1200/- ). The ground on which this claims were disallowed was that there was no independent reliable evidence on the point. While we appreciate and agree with the Tribunals view point in so far as the claim for attendants salary is concerned we are unable to uphold its conclusion in regard to the claim for loss of the appellants fathers income. The appellants father has in terms deposed that he had proceeded on two and half months leave and that he was granted only one months leave with full wages. For the remaining period of one and half months he was on leave without pay and had thus suffered a loss of Rs. 1200. 00. There is nothing in the cross-examination which detracts from the value of the aforesaid evidence. The appellant was confined to hospital for a total period of 31 months Even on probabilities and wordly experience the evidence on the point will require acceptance. One cannot insist upon production of independent evidence in matters of such nature especially when the claim is not high or substantial. In our Opinion therefore the Tribunals award in so far as it disallowed compensation in the sum of Rs. 1200. 00 on account of loss of income of the appellants father during the period that he attended upon the appellant suffers from an obvious error. The appellant would be entitled to an additional award in the sum of Rs. 1200. 00 under the aforesaid combined head. II. Pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. ( 13 ) NOW in First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 other three connected matters (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan) 23 (2) G. L. R. 180 we have recently awarded Compensation in the sum of Rs 37 0 under this head only for the loss of vision of the right-eye in the case of a young man aged about 21. ( 13 ) NOW in First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 other three connected matters (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan) 23 (2) G. L. R. 180 we have recently awarded Compensation in the sum of Rs 37 0 under this head only for the loss of vision of the right-eye in the case of a young man aged about 21. Even M therefore there was only the loss of vision without anything more the appellant would have been entitled to an award atleast in the like amount. In fact the appellant being much younger in age and the remainder of his life being comparatively longer and the pain and suffering and lost pleasures of life being to that extent more prolonged the compensation would have been required to be made on a somewhat higher scale. Besides the appellant has been left with a disfigured face on account of a bulging eye and a discoloured eye-ball and this additional factor would have pushed up compensation still further. The matter does not however rest merely at that because the appellant has not only suffered loss of vision and disfigurement but also a permanent disability affecting the entire left side of his body. He is experiencing difficulty in speech. His gait is not normal and he has to depend on somebody to help him in his daily routine. Chances of matrimony are also severely affected. The scale of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life with all these disabilities and limitations would be much higher. Even if hemiplegia with 3% to 40% permanent disability were the only tragic consequence or the accident a liberal award would have been required to be made under this head When in Amul Rameshchandra v. Abbasbhai Kasambhai 19 G. L R. 721 a sum of Rs. 25000. 00 was awarded under this head in the case of a young boy aged 12 whose right leg above the ankle bad been amputated a higher if not a substantially higher amount would have been required to be awarded for permanent malfunctioning of the entire half side of the body. 25000. 00 was awarded under this head in the case of a young boy aged 12 whose right leg above the ankle bad been amputated a higher if not a substantially higher amount would have been required to be awarded for permanent malfunctioning of the entire half side of the body. ( 14 ) BEARING in mind all the circumstances of the case and taking an overall view of the scale of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life resulting from multiple injuries it appears to us that an award in the sum of Rs. 55 0 under this head would be just proper and adequate. For the disfigured and disjointed physical frame With which the appellant will have to learn to live for over half a century and for the pain unsightliness inconvenience and lost pleasures and amenities of life an award in the aforesaid sum would be the justcompensation. III. Pecuniary Loss: ( 15 ) NEXT comes the compensation under the head of pecuniary loss. As held in Amul Rameshchandras case this loss is divisible in two categories one negative and another positive. In the first category falls the deprivation of earnings or other items which would have been received but for the accident and have now been taken away. tn the second category is comprised the new positive burden of expenses required to be incurred as a result of the accident. So far as the assessment under the first sub-head in the case of a very young child who was not yet reached an age to pursue a career or to be employed gainfully is concerned what has to be borne in mind is that the compensation has to be ceded not for the loss of future earnings but for the loss of earning capacity. What is awarded in such cases by way of damages is truly compensation for a disability or to put it differently for destruction of diminution of a capital asset albeit of a limited duration. For the assessment of such loss an estimate of the probable future earnings had there been no accident and the actual earning power left after the accident has to he made. The difference between the two is the loss of earning capacity. For the assessment of such loss an estimate of the probable future earnings had there been no accident and the actual earning power left after the accident has to he made. The difference between the two is the loss of earning capacity. The subject matter of estimation is very much what is often called a series of imponderables and what has somehow to be quantified in assessing damages is the present value of the risk that a claimant Will at some future time suffer financial damage because of his disadvantage in the labour market. The probability or risk of toss of earning capacity must however be substantial and real and the damages must be assessed and quantified having regard to all sorts of variable factors favourable and unfavourable which in a petitioner case will or may be relevant (see Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Niranjan 23 (2) G. L. R. 180 ). It is not easy to make such an estimate in the case of young boy about whose prospective earnining add probable loss one has only to make an estimate-after a very rough estimate-based purely on guess work. So far as the other sub-head namely the new positive burden of expenses to be incurred as a result of the accident is concerned the cost of medical expenses if any which the injured person might be required to incur in future and his need of nursing and constant attendance and extra nourishment if any will have to be taken into account (see Amul Rameshchandra: XIX G. L. R. 721 ). ( 16 ) IN the instant case it appears that the Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking into account only the loss suffered under the first sub-head. It has not at all awarded any compensation for the prospective loss under the second sub-head. The Tribunal appears to have taken the view contrary to the medical evidence and the evidence of the appellants father that the appellant does not and will not require assistance of any person in the day to day chores of his life and it is for that reason that it appears to have ignored the new prospective burden of expenses. So far as the first sub-head is concerned the Tribunal although it found that the disabilities and limitations flowing out of the different injuries will prove to be a handicap in the future progress of the appellant. So far as the first sub-head is concerned the Tribunal although it found that the disabilities and limitations flowing out of the different injuries will prove to be a handicap in the future progress of the appellant. has awarded a sum of Rs. 18000. 00 only as compensation on the basis that the appellant would have ordinarily earned atleast Rs. 200. 00 per month and that on account of the injuries his earning capacity would suffer to the extent of 50 % and that therefore his economic loss was to the extent of Rs. IC0. 00 per month that is to say Rs. 1200. 00 per year and applying the multiplier of 15 the loss was quantified at Rs. 18000. 00. Here too in our opinion the assessment of the Tribunal is based on a gross underestimate. ( 17 ) THE appellants father is a matriculate. He thereafter joined cotton weaving course and took two years technical training. He appears to have joined service thereafter and on the date of the trials his total emoluments per month were Rs. 775. 00. The appellant himself was regarding in the third standard at the time of the accident. He was promoted to next higher standard but when he resumed study he failed in the examination of that standard. It would thus appear that his academic career has been to some extent affected as a result of the accident. He appears to have been an average student but it would not be unreasonable to assume having regard to his family background that he would have successfully completed a degree course and would have then taken up some employment. However on account of the accident it cannot now be safely assumed that he would be able to complete his studies. In any case it cannot possibly be doubted that even if he completes the study in the labour market he would be at a disadvantage as compared to any other person with normal eye sight and physical frame. Finding an employment will not therefore be an easy task for him any longer. He does not see to possess any special skill and with his physical handicap it would be difficult for him to acquire any such special skill in future. Finding an employment will not therefore be an easy task for him any longer. He does not see to possess any special skill and with his physical handicap it would be difficult for him to acquire any such special skill in future. In the case of the appellant therefore it cannot possibly be doubted that there is a substantial and real loss of earning capacity as a result of the injuries received by him. ( 18 ) IT is not any easy task to make an estimate of the present value of the probable financial damage which the appellant is likely to suffer as a result of the injuries. The compensation awardable under this head must necessarily take into account not only the deprivation of earnings on account of loss of earning capacity but also the prospective burden of expenses to be incurred in view of the appellants need of constant attendance. As observed in Amul Rameshchandra under such circumstances the best method to adopt would be to make a global assessment under both the sub-heads and to award compensation for pecuniary loss taking into account all the relevant factors. ( 19 ) THERE is no manner of doubt that in these days to assess prospective income of a boy aged about 12 with the history and family background of the appellant at a steady figure of Rs. 200. 00 per month is to make a gross underestimate. As earlier pointed out the appellant would in all reasonable probability have completed a graduation course and taken to some employment. In the full span of his future working life which could be estimated to be atleast 35 years even if the appellant had started at the monthly emoluments of Rs. 200. 00 he could legitimately be expected to have earned in course of time atleast Rs. 1000. 00 per month at the end of his working life. Now as a result of the accident the appellants eligibility for employment is considerably reduced. According to the medical evidence the permanent disability which he has suffered on account of hemiplegia alone is 40% for the upper left limb and 30 for the lower left limb. Besides one has also to take into account the disability flowing from the loss of vision in one eye. According to the medical evidence the permanent disability which he has suffered on account of hemiplegia alone is 40% for the upper left limb and 30 for the lower left limb. Besides one has also to take into account the disability flowing from the loss of vision in one eye. It also cannot be said with certainty that the academic career would run a smooth course and that the appellant would be able to obtain graduation. That might be an additional handicap in his way in securing employment. There is no possibility also of the appellant acquiring any special skill so as to enable him to compensate for his probable loss of academic career. At the same time however it would be difficult to say that he would not be gainfully employed at all in spite of his handicap. Taking into account all relevant circumstances it would not be unreasonable to assume that in course of time he would find atleast some employment which would yield him income which may not stand comparison with what he would have otherwise earned but which would atleast keep him going in life. These are the factors which must be taken into account in estimating the compensation under the first sub-head. As regards the compensation under the second subhead although the evidence on record is not very satisfactory with regard to the actual expenditure incurred in providing attendants service to the appellant it cannot be gainsaid that atleast for a few years to come the appellant which need the assistance of somebody in diverse chores of life. Some expenditure on trails count cannot be altogether ruled out. It appears to us having regard to all the circumstances of the case that the present value of the prospective loss of the appellant can safely be estimated at Rs. 350. 00 per month that is to say at Rs. 4200. 00 per annum. It would take care of every conceivable and relevant factor. In case of a young boy aged about 12 the multiple to be adopted cannot be less than 15. On the aforesaid basis the economic loss of the appellant would come to Rs. 63 0 and compensation under this head must be in the said sum. We are unable to uphold the award in the sum of Rs. 18000. In case of a young boy aged about 12 the multiple to be adopted cannot be less than 15. On the aforesaid basis the economic loss of the appellant would come to Rs. 63 0 and compensation under this head must be in the said sum. We are unable to uphold the award in the sum of Rs. 18000. 00 made by the Tribunal ( 20 ) WE accordingly hold that the appellant is entitled to additional compensation as under as a result of the foregoing discussion :the claim in appeal however is restricted to Rs. 62443. 00. The actual award therefore can only be in the sum of Rs. 62 443 . ( 21 ) THE appeal accordingly fully succeeds with costs. The appellant will be entitled to the additional compensation in the sum of Rs. 62 443 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment and costs throughout. The third respondent shall deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. Out of the said amount the Tribunal will forthwith arrange to have the amount of Rs. 60 0 together with proportionate interest accrued due thereon deposited in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank for a period of ten years on the condition that the appellant will not be entitled to withdraw the amount before the due date nor will it be open to him to raise any loan against the fixed deposit without the prior permission of the Tribunal. Half of the interest accruing due on the filed deposit will be reinvested from time to time and the remaining half shall be paid to the guardian of the appellate for his care and maintenance. The balance of the awarded amount including the amount of costs and proportionate interest will be paid over to the guardian of the appellant after due identification. Appeal allowed. .