V. V. BEDARKAR, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Suresh Babubhai who is a minor filed an application for compensation through his guardian his father on the allegation that on 18-8-1970 on the public road opposite to his house he received injuries due to the accident caused by original opponent no. 1 (respondent no. 1) who was the driver and owner of motor car bearing no. B. S. I 7019 The said motor car had passed over his leg and there were crushing in juries. It was therefore alleged that original opponent no. 1 drove his car rashly and negligently and caused injuries to the applicant which resulted in the permanent defect to his leg and therefore an amount of Rs. 62 0 as compensation was claimed. After the hearing the learned Tribunal came to the affirmative conclusion about the rash and negligent driving of the car by opponent no. 1. There is no challenge to this finding before us and therefore we would not dwell much upon it. ( 2 ) FURTHER on considering the injuries received by the minor applicant the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1 0 for medical expenses Rs. 1 0 for physical pain and suffering and Rs. 6 0 for permanent disability and general damages i. e. in all Rs. 8 0 Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded the minor applicant has come in appeal. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the pain and suffering undergone by the applicant and also in order to consider the future disability it will be worth while to consider the evidence of medical expert. The applicant has examined Dr. M. M. Pandya at Ex. 91. He is Orthopedic Surgeon attached to Maskati Hospital and Surat General Hospital. It is true that though the accident took place on 18-8-1970 this Dr. Pandya examined the applicant on 4-3-1971 in his consulting room as a private patient. But the evidence of this Dr. Pandya also clearly shows that though the applicant was first brought to him after seven months after the accident he had known about the injuries of the applicant when he was admitted in Maskati Hospital and treated there. It is an admitted position that Dr. Pandya is an Orthopaedic Surgeon attached to Maskati Hospital and also he has his own consulting practice. The latter examination was in his consulting room. It is an admitted position that Dr. Pandya is an Orthopaedic Surgeon attached to Maskati Hospital and also he has his own consulting practice. The latter examination was in his consulting room. But as he was attached to Maskati Hospital as an Orthopaedic Surgeon person with such injuries must have been shown to him and therefore the admission of Dr. Pandya that he had seen the s applicant earlier would clearly go to show that he had some idea about the type of injuries received by the applicant. It was also found that at Maskati Hospital the wound of the applicant became septic. At Maskati Hospital the applicant was treated by Dr. Dixit who is not an Orthopaedic Surgeon. It was urged before the learned Tribunal as well as before us by Mr. M. A. Trivedi learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 that Dr. Pandya has admitted that as the applicant was not treated well at Maskati Hospital initially his wound had become septic which ultimately resulted in the permanent defect. But this is a generalization of about the type of injuries received by the applicant. Ultimately Dr. Pandya had to admit that even if the applicant would have been treated by the Orthopaedic Surgeon soon after the accident the result would not have been different because according to him the crushing had completely done away the extensor muscles of the toes and it has produced infection in the joints of the foot and this deformity of the foot has resulted from the distraction of the joints. So the contention that if the applicant would have been treated by an Orthopaedic Surgeon right from the beginning then this deformity would not have remained has no substance. The final examination made by Mr. Pandya would be the deciding factor to know what the applicant suffered and what he will suffer throughout his life. Not only that but that would also show to us the extent of pain and suffering undergone by the applicant during the treatment and future pain that he would suffer even mentally after the entire treatment is over. ( 4 ) WHEN Dr. Pandya examined the applicant on 4-3-1971 he advised the applicant for Xray of his right foot and ankle joint. That Xray taken is produced at Ex. 92. According to this X ray the bones forming ankle joint and the joints of the foot were eroded. ( 4 ) WHEN Dr. Pandya examined the applicant on 4-3-1971 he advised the applicant for Xray of his right foot and ankle joint. That Xray taken is produced at Ex. 92. According to this X ray the bones forming ankle joint and the joints of the foot were eroded. Report Ex. 93 of Radiologist Dr. Udapudi clearly shows that there was marked decalcification and rarefaction of the bones of ankle and foot. There was erosion of the fibial margin on the posterior lateral aspect and also erosion of the lower end of tibia and nevicular bones. In the opinion of Dr. Pandya there was scar on the dorsom of right foot and his leg was wasted by one inch. His ankle joint was fixed into 15 to 20 degrees planter flexion and there was no movement at the ankle and joints beyond the ankle of the right foot. There was also limitation of the movement of the toes. The applicant was advised drugs and physio therap and if he did not improve with that he may need surgery for correction of fixed planter flexion. However again on 24-3-9971 when the applicant was examined by Dr. Pandya there was no change and therefore he was advised surgery. The applicant was admitted to Surat General Hospital on 26-4-1971 and he was operated for the defect of the soot. He was discharged on 4-5-1971. Dr. Pandya performed the operation of his tendo- achilles for lengthening of the tendon. After the operation his foot was kept in plaster and after the plaster was removed the applicant was given physiotherapy. Again Dr. Pandya saw the applicant at his consulting room on 23-11-1971 and on examining the applicant he found that there was wasting of calf muscle by one and a half inches and the ankle range had come to 10 degreer and 15 to 20 degrees in planter flexion. This evidence clearly shows that the applicant suffered pain and agony with the deformity upto 23 from the date of accident which was 18-8-1970 i. e. more than one year. On this deformity there is clear evidence of Dr. Pandya that there was do possibility of movement of inversion and aversion with the result that if the applicant will have to walk on irregular surface he will find it difficult to walk. On this deformity there is clear evidence of Dr. Pandya that there was do possibility of movement of inversion and aversion with the result that if the applicant will have to walk on irregular surface he will find it difficult to walk. Even on straight surface the applicant can walk for some distance but on irregular surface he will not be able to walk for long. Even on straight surface when he will have to walk for long he will feel pain. Even if he runs he would run awkwardly and according to Dr. Pandya this defect will remain permanently. Therefore he assessed the disability at 25 per cent. According to this doctor the deformity of the leg and foot will also remain permanently. For this there is certificate Ex. 98 of Dr. Pandya. ( 5 ) NOW the opinion of Dr. Pandya pertaining to 25 per cent deformity was seriously challenged because Dr. Pandya has admitted that he has not based his assessment on the standard of any authority because there is no such standard prescribed. The learned Tribunal rightly rejected the contention that the disability percentage given by Mr. Pandya should not be relied upon. The Tribunal rightly observed that it should be remembered that Dr. Pandya is a reputed Orthopaedic Surgeon practicing at Surat. He is an F. R. C. S. (Edin.) and F. R. C. S. (London) and he has given the estimate after personally examining the applicant and therefore there was no reason to disbelieve his opinion. We fully concur with this finding of the learned Tribunal. ( 6 ) IN spite of having come to the aforesaid conclusion while awarding the amount of compensation towards physical pain and suffering which was a claim of only Rs. 5 0 the learned Tribunal after having observed that the applicant suffered much physical pain on account of the injuries received by him in the accident and that he was an indoor patient in the Maskati Hospital for about two and a half months and thereafter he was treated by Dr. Chandawala and thereafter by Dr. Pandya and he was operated upon even seven month; after the accident only awarded an amount of Rs. Chandawala and thereafter by Dr. Pandya and he was operated upon even seven month; after the accident only awarded an amount of Rs. 1 0 We must observe here that this is a claim on the count of general damages which would cover the claim for other aspects also i. e. the loss of comforts and amenities of life and also future earning capacity. The Court has only to see that so far as special damages are concerned the amount would be awarded only within the amount claimed while so far as the general damages are concerned even though some different amounts might have been claimed under different heads if the amount awarded does not go beyond the total amount claimed towards general damages then the Court would be justified in awarding any amount more or less on any particular head. In the instant case looking to the age of the applicant looking to the torture suffered by him for more than one year and looking to the future comforts that he would be losing in life as a young boy and as a youth we think that an amount of Rs. 10 0 on this count would be quite proper and therefore there will be enhancement of Rs. 9 0 on this count. ( 7 ) THEN comes the question of awarding the amount of compensation towards the loss of future earning capacity. This never depends on the present earning capacity of a person but it depends on the potentiality which can be available from the type of a person who has been injured. It is true that the applicant comes from a lower middle class being a tailors son. But in the present days future is not circumscribed by the position at the time of the birth. Wide avenues are available for young and enthusiastic and capable persons in our country in such a way that they can reach any height keeping only the sky as a limit. Under these circumstances considering the future loss of earning capacity of a young boy like the applicant would be merely guess work. But we propose that such guess work should be of a reasonable appreciation of the avenues that will be available to the boy. Under these circumstances considering the future loss of earning capacity of a young boy like the applicant would be merely guess work. But we propose that such guess work should be of a reasonable appreciation of the avenues that will be available to the boy. Now when we have considered that young people in our country have the widest scope keeping only the sky as a limit when this applicant who is a young boy will enter the competition after he comes up to a particular age would he not suffer a set back due to difficulty in leg in the active world where everybody would be striving to reach the highest pinacle available ? This aspect can never be lost sight of while considering the loss to a young man especially the less of the capacity of using the vital limb like a leg. Even if his working as a tailor is considered at the lowest level then also difficulty in the leg would be hampering his capacity to work. The learned Tribunal while considering the various rulings for awarding Rs. 6 0 towards permanent disability and general damages it seems also included the future mental pain which the applicant would be suffering when he will be moving in the society as a limping man. It is such a thing which will hurt the selfconfidence and which can never be calculated in terms of money whatever the amount is awarded. But we have to arrive at some reasonable figure to put for the incapacity and in our view we feel that the loss can well be estimated at Rs. 125. 00 per month and if that is so the datum figure per year would be Rs. 1 500 Even though the applicant is very young i. e. aged about 10 years we would put the maximum figure till now considered by this Court as a multiplier for 15 years. That would bring the award under this head at Rs. 22 500 Rs. 6 0 are already awarded by the learned Tribunal. So there will be an additional award of Rs. 16 500 on this count. Adding Rs. 9 0 by way of general damages towards physical and mental pain and suffering the total additional amount of compensation would come to Rs. 25 500 which is the amount claimed in the appeal. .