P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) A tragic accident left in its trail telltale after-effects on the lives of two young men and gave rise to twin claims for compensation. After the usual period of hibernation and gestation the claims produced a common award. The offspring fell short of the expectations and aspirations of the claimants and it belied the anticipation and estimation of the adverse party. In its turn it has given birth to these quadruple appeals. ( 2 ) THE accident occurred at 10 A. M. on 2/09/1972 The site of the accident was a spot in the vicinity of the Jyoti Sangh building on the Relief Road Ahmedabad. The vehicles involved in the accident were a rickshaw bearing Registration No. G. T. E. 972 and a municipal bus bearing Registration No. G. T. A. 8395. The two persons who suffered injury in the course of the accident are Niranjan aged about 21 married and employed as a helper in the Design Department of the Calico Mills at Ahmedabad on the date of the accident and at the date of trial and Bharat aged about 21 unmarried and unemployed both on the duty of the accident and at the date of trial. The two young men were travelling in the rickshaw which was proceeding from west to east that is to say from Lal Darwaja side to the station side. The municipal bus was proceeding from east to west that is to say from the Station side to Lal Darwaja side. Near the Jyoti Sangh building there was a collision between the rickshaw and the bus and the right front side of the rickshaw took the impact of the accident. As a result of the impact the rickshaw turned round half a circle facing the direction exactly opposite to that in which it was proceeding and in the process it got overturned and fell on if it left side. ( 3 ) NIRANJAN who was sitting in the rickshaw on the right side got trapped under the rickshaw whereas Bharat who was sitting next to him on the left side was thrown out on the road. Both received injuries and lost consciousness soon after the accident. Niranjan received minor injuries near the right eye and over the nose and on two fingers. The major injury which he sustained however was a fracture of the right femur. Both received injuries and lost consciousness soon after the accident. Niranjan received minor injuries near the right eye and over the nose and on two fingers. The major injury which he sustained however was a fracture of the right femur. Bharat sustained minor injury over the right knee joint. The major injury in his case however was on the right eye which resulted in an instantaneous loss of vision in the said eye. Niranjan was admitted in the Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital at 11. 50 A. M. whereas Bharat was admitted in the said Hospital at 1-30 P. M. on the same day. Niranjan received treatment as an indoor patient in the hospital from 2/09/1972 till Sep 23/09/1972 During the period of his hospitalizations he was operated upon and a nail was inserted at the site of the fracture. His parsed of treatment as an outdoor patient continued for a period of two months after the date of his discharge from the hospital. For a period of about four months he was bed-ridden and for a period of about 21 months thereafter he was on crutches and confined to home Thereafter he started slowly moving out of the house and walking with the aid of a stick. Until he moved out of the house he remained away from his job. As to when exactly he joined duty however there is no evidence on record. Bharat received treatment as an indoor patient in the hospital from 2/09/1972 till Sep 14/09/1972 He continued to receive treatment as an outdoor patient for a period of 15 days after his discharge from the hospital. Subsequently he took treatment from an Eye Specialist for a period of about one week. Nothing helped him however and the lost vision was not restored either wholly or partially or even minimally. At the time of the accident he was prosecuting studies in the Second Year B. Com. Class in the N. C. Bodiwala Commerce College at Ahmedabad. The tragic consequence of the impairment in his vision was that he could not resume studies which he has now permanently left. At the time of the accident he was prosecuting studies in the Second Year B. Com. Class in the N. C. Bodiwala Commerce College at Ahmedabad. The tragic consequence of the impairment in his vision was that he could not resume studies which he has now permanently left. ( 4 ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion we come to the conclusion that the Tribunals decision that both the claimants received injuries in the course of an accident which occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the municipal bus by the bus driver is fully justified We also agree with the Tribunal that the respondent-Corporation owning as it did the vehicle which was driven by the bus driver in the course of his employment is vicariously liable for the tortious act. ( 5 ) WE take this opportunity once again to bring into sharp focus the need to amend the legislation governing the award of damages in motor accident cases by introducing the no-fault liability concept in a suitable manner and by providing for expeditious settlement of claims. Many Courts including the Supreme Court have spoken on this subject and we can do no better than extract the following passage from the decision in State of Haryana v. Smt. Darshana Devi A. I. R. 1979 Supreme Court 855 which with respect expresses views on the subject with justifiable force and emphasis:"it is a notorious fact that our highways are grave-yards on a tragic scale what with narrow neglected roads reckless unchecked drivers heavy vehicular traffic and State Transport buses often inflicting the maximum casualties Now that insurance against third party risk is compulsory and motor insurance is nationalised and transport itself is largely by State Undertakings. the principle of no-fault liability and on-the-spot settlement of claims should become national policy. The victims. as here are mostly below the property line and litigation is compounded misery. Hit-and-run cases are common and the time is ripe for the court to examine whether no-fault liability is not implicit in the Motor Vehicles Act itself and for Parliament to make law in this behalf to remove all doubts. A long-ago Report of the Central Law Commission confined to hit-and-run cases of auto-accidents is gathering dust. Hit-and-run cases are common and the time is ripe for the court to examine whether no-fault liability is not implicit in the Motor Vehicles Act itself and for Parliament to make law in this behalf to remove all doubts. A long-ago Report of the Central Law Commission confined to hit-and-run cases of auto-accidents is gathering dust. The horrendous increase of highway casualties and the chronic neglect of rules of roadsafety constrains us to recommended to the Central Law Commission and to Parliament to senitize this tragic area of tort law and overhaul it humanistically". ( 6 ) WE might point out that in the United Kingdom where the tort system provides annually 202 million pounds to 2 215 0 beneficiaries by way of compensation for personal injuries and death from accidents and the percentage obtaining tort compensation for motor vehicle injuries is 25 per cent the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury was set up in or about 1973 to consider to what extent in what circumstances and be what means compensation should be payable in respect of death or personal injury suffered by any person inter alia through the use of a motor vehicle or other means of transport. The Commission in its report submitted in 1978 (conveniently called the Pearson Report) has in terms recommended that while the two systems of tort and social security should continue side by side no-fault compensation should he introduced for motor vehicle injuries (see volume I ). Mr. Norman S. Narsh. C. B. E. Q C. Member of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (1973-1978) and of the Law Commission (1965-1978) in his article on The Pearson Report on Civil Liability and Compensation for Death or Personal Injury published in the Law Quarterly Review Vol. 95 at page 513 has pointed out at page 522 that it was clear from a survey of overseas compensation system that it was possible to have a system of compensation for motor vehicle injuries which did not depend on proving fault in a defendant in other words a so-called no-fault system and which was provided by toe private insurance industry rather than by the State. Such a system provided by the private insurance industry is prevailing in about half the States of the United States and seven of the ten provinces of Canada. Such a system provided by the private insurance industry is prevailing in about half the States of the United States and seven of the ten provinces of Canada. In British Columbia Manitoba and Saskatchewan no-fault schemes for motor vehicle injuries are administered by public corporations. It would thus appear that the no-fault liability is now becoming an accepted doctrine elsewhere and that in some of the countries it is actually put into practice and working successfully. The legislature in our socialist republic wedded to the goal of a welfare State has made the third party risk insurance cover compulsory. Now that the general insurance industry is nationalised and the State itself has monopolised to a large extent the public transport system there s no reason why adopting and synthesising the systems prevalent in the United States of America Canada British Columbia etc. the insurer/ public undertakings should not be made liable to pay compensation in motor vehicle accident cases on the basis of a no-fault liability scheme and why the procedure for the recovery of compensation should not be simplified so as to ensure quick payment of a just compensation at the least cost to the injured persons and dependants of victims of motor vehicle accidents. We trust and hope that some measures will be taken in this direction before long by those in whom the power is reposed. ( 7 ) IT would be convenient now to turn to the question of assessment of damages Before we do so however we may deal with the question of principles governing the award of damages in cases of this nature. A person injured by anothers wrong is entitled to general damages for non-pecuniary loss such as his pain and suffering past and future and his loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum. There has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer is reflected in the actual amount of the award. There has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer is reflected in the actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessment of damages at certain key points (see Babu Mansa v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 19 G. L. R. 492 ( 8 ) IN addition to the general damages for non-pecuniary loss the injured person is also entitled to damages for pecuniary loss. The award of damages for pecuniary loss is usually made under two distinct heads. Special damages are awarded for the actual pecuniary loss that is to say the exact amount of money which has been lost or spent as a consequence of the injury upto the date of the trial. There must be a specific plea as to the exact or approximate pecuniary loss upto the date of the trial and it proved such amount would be awarded as special damages. General damages are awarded for what may be conveniently termed as the loss of prospective earning. The deprivation of earnings or other items which would have been received but for the accident and have now been taken away and the new positive burden of expenses incurred as a result of the accident would be reflected in the damages awarded under this head. (see Bharat Premji v. Municipal Corporation 19 G. L. R. 585) ( 9 ) IT is essential to bear in mind that loss arising on accident of deprivation of future earnings is itself divisible into two distinct categories; loss of future earnings and less of earning capacity. The loss of future earnings Consists of the estimate formed of trial real assessable pecuniary loss of wages income or profits which is likely to be suffered of the injured person after the date of the trial as a result off the accident. Take for example the case of a person who is in profession trade or employment at the date of trial but is earning less then what he was earning before the accident. Take for example the case of a person who is in profession trade or employment at the date of trial but is earning less then what he was earning before the accident. He can claim compensation for loss of future earnings which is so be assessed on the ordinary multiplier/multiplicand basis. On the other hand where an injured person is still able to earn his pre-accident wages performing his pre-accident well or by obtaining another employment or taking to another trade or profession which is more suited to his handicap or currently inferior state of fitness he has no claim for loss of future earnings. This does not necessarily mean however that he can claim to compensation whatever for future pecuniary person He may be able to claim that he has suffered some reduction in his capacity to earn money on account of the damage presumed to flow from the injury sustained such as any prejudice to his advancement in the chosen career or chance of getting another equally paid job in case he loses his present employment or securing a better paid form of employment open to birth or of his being promoted to a higher post at his present place of work. Similarly where a person who has sustained severe injuries with or without some permanent disability but has not able to prove precisely any prospective loss of earnings say because he is a very young child who has not reached an age to pursue a career or to be employed gainfully or is a young adult who Is not yet earning at all or earning a true living wage for one reason or another he may also claim compensation for loss of earning capacity. What is awarded in these cases by way of damages is truly a compensation for a disability or to put it differently for destruction or 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 be 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 be 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 plaintiff will at some future time suffer financial damage because of his disadvantage in the labour market. Two aspects must however be kept in mind in quantification of the damages: first there must be a substantial or real (and not speculative or fanciful) probability or risk of loss of earning capacity and secondly the damages must be assessed and quantified having regard to all sorts of variable factors such as for example the injured persons age his skills the nature and degree of his disability whether he is capable of one type of work only or whether he is or could become capable of others the general employment situation or prospects of advancement in his trade profession or vocation and area or both the probability and time when the loss may materialise and so on and so forth. Factors both favourable and unfavourables which in a particular case will or may be relevant must be weighed and considered (see Charlesworth on Negligence Sixth Edition Paragraphs 1439 to 1441 pages 885 to 887; The Quantum of Damages Vol. 1 by Kemp and Kemp Fourth Edition Chapter 12 page 121; and Moeliker v. A. Reyrolle arld Co. (1977) 1 All England Law Reports 9 (CA ). ( 10 ) AGAINST the aforesaid background we now turn to the question of assessment of damages under different heads in the case of Niranjan and Bharat respectively. (A) NIRANJAN85 (1) PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSE OF AMENITIES and ENJOYMENT OF LIFE. No claim was specifically made under this head but damages in the sum of Rs. 30 0 were claimed under the head of compensation for permanent defect ard Rs. 5000. 00 for mental shock. The claim of damages for pain and suffering must be taken to have been comprised in the damages claimed under those two heads. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30 0 were claimed under the head of compensation for permanent defect ard Rs. 5000. 00 for mental shock. The claim of damages for pain and suffering must be taken to have been comprised in the damages claimed under those two heads. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10 0 following two decisions one reported and another un- reported of this Court. The reported decision is in Ranjitsingh Gopalsingh v. Meenaxiben 13 G. L. R. 562 and the unreported decision was rendered in First Appeal No. 672 of 1971 (Vipinkumar Babubhai Surati v. The Government of Gujarat) decided on 9/03/1973 ( 11 ) HEREIN the injured person was aged about 21 at the time of the accident. The injury which he has suffered is the fracture of the right femur. The injury has left a permanent handicap. Even at the date of the trial he had a limping gait and difficulty in squatting and sitting cross-legged. He could not walk without the aid of a stick. Even with the aid of a stick he could only walk slowly and for a very short dis- tance. The pain in the leg persisted. The last 10 degrees of abduction and external rotation of the right hip were painful and restricted. There was tenderness in the region of the right greater trochanter. A nail had to be inserted at the site of the fracture. The permanent disability of the particular limb has been assessed at 20% but taking the capacity of the body as a whole at 100% the estimate with regard to the permanent dis- ability of the particular limb was between 5 and 10%. The period of hospitalization was 21 days but it was followed by outdoor treatment for a period of two months and a total period of four months of confine ment to bed. He has suffered a shock and becomes nervous at times and is also apprehensive of his future. ( 12 ) ALTHOUGH there is slight variation in the degree of disability suffered by the injured person in Babu Mansas case and in this case by and large the disability is still readily identifiable and the severity of the injuries is comparable. Therefore the damages awardable would fall in the same bracket. Niranjan will have to live with the discomforts and disabilities resulting from this accident nearly for half a century. Therefore the damages awardable would fall in the same bracket. Niranjan will have to live with the discomforts and disabilities resulting from this accident nearly for half a century. The pain that he has actually suffered and was suffering at the date of the trial the tenderness restriction of movements clumsiness inconvenience unsightliness etc. at work and off work which this injury will always inflict on him justify an award in the sum of Rs. 15 0 despite the fact that upon a very close scrutiny slight difference might be perceivable in the severity of injuries in this case and in the case of Babu Mansa. 42 We may also point out that the consumer price index numbers for industrial workers all India general index discloses a further fall in the purchasing power of rupee between the date of the decision in Babu Mansa and the decision herein. The relevant date is as follows:year general Index (Annual average )1978. . . 3291979. . . 349the fall in the value of money itself would justify an award of Rs. 15 0 under this head for the injury suffered by Niranjan even assuming that there is a slight difference between the severity of injuries in the two cases. Indeed this is the bracket of damages in which this kind of injury will currently fall in similar cases. The Tribunals would be well-advised in currently awarding damages in similar cases on the basis of this guide-line. (2) PECUNIARY LOSS: ( 13 ) THE compensation under this head was claimed under two sub-heads Rs. 2000. 00 for cost of medicines and medical treatment and Rs. 300. 00 as compensation for permanent defect. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000. 00 as special damages for cost of medicines and medical treatment. The claim under that sub-head is therefore fully satisfied. General damages in the sum of Rs. 15000. 00 were awarded by the Tribunal under the combined head of loss of amenities and pecuniary loss. Now in the first place general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities should have been assessed together on a global basis. Damages for pecuniary loss should have been separately quantified. In the next place we have come to the conclusion that an award of Rs. 15 0 under this head is too low and that it requires to be revised upwards. . . . . . . . Damages for pecuniary loss should have been separately quantified. In the next place we have come to the conclusion that an award of Rs. 15 0 under this head is too low and that it requires to be revised upwards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 14 ) IT is difficult to appreciate as to how a sum of Rs. 15 0 was arrived at as the proper compensation not only for future pecuniary loss but also for loss of amenities. The discussion is too general to indicate the basis of assessment and the method if any followed in arriving at the ultimate figure is difficult to perceive. The last sentence in the extracted portion of the decision of the Tribunal indicates that it determined compensation under this head at Rs. 15 0 after taking into consideration the award in the sum of Rs. 10 0 for pain and suffering. If it was meant thereby that there is necessarily duplication in the award of damages under the head of pain and suffering and under the head of pecuniary loss then the Tribunal was clearly in error in law. The two are distinct heads and each is a proper subject of compensation. True it is that the Court must be vigilant to avoid duplication of damages. However in most cases the risk of overlapping is not great nor substantial when compensation is separately awarded under the aforesaid two heads. In this case we do not find any such overlapping at all. It would thus appear that the Tribunals award is inadequate because it has not correctly appreciated the principles and precisely applied the method for determining damages. ( 15 ) AT the date of the trial Niranjan had gone back to his original work and he was getting the same emoluments which he would have earned if he had not met with the accident. In his case therefore there can be no question of awarding damages for actual loss of future earnings. The only question which falls for consideration therefore is whether there is any loss of earning capacity as result of his chances in the future of earning promotion or getting in the labour market work-work as well paid or better paid as before the accident-having been diminished by his injury. The only question which falls for consideration therefore is whether there is any loss of earning capacity as result of his chances in the future of earning promotion or getting in the labour market work-work as well paid or better paid as before the accident-having been diminished by his injury. This question has to be examined in two aspects: first whether the probability if any of loss of earning capacity is real and substantial and secondly it so what is the proper quantification of the present value of the financial damage which he will suffer if the probability becomes a reality. ( 16 ) ON the date of the accident Niranjan was about 21 and at the time of trial he was about 22. The span of his future working life is therefore about 35 to 36 years. He has passed the S. S. C. Examination but has had no further academic career. There is no evidence to show that he possesses any special skill. He appears to have started therefore at the lowest rung of the ladder in the Design Department. His basic salary when he joined was only Rs. 38. 00 per month which by the time of trial bad been raised to Rs. 54. 00 per month. He took him present job only one year before the accident. He is therefore not an old and tired employee. The injury received by him has affected the speed and quality of his work both of which have deteriorated. The physical handicap suffered by him was manifest even at the trial and there is permanent disability. Though his employers have allowed him to resume duty it might as well be on a trial basis. Indeed he was apprehensive of his future when he gave evidence. Taking an overall view of these circumstances the probability that he might some day lose his present job cannot altogether be ruled out. There is no evidence that he is capable of working in different capacities or different employments. Therefore in the event of his being discharged he would be at a disadvantage in the labour market having regard to his handicap. Indeed he has deposed that because of his physical handicap his chance of securing service elsewhere are nil. There is no evidence that he is capable of working in different capacities or different employments. Therefore in the event of his being discharged he would be at a disadvantage in the labour market having regard to his handicap. Indeed he has deposed that because of his physical handicap his chance of securing service elsewhere are nil. Apart from the aforesaid consideration the further fact which stands established on evidence is that his chances of promotion to the higher post of semi-artist and to the still higher post of artist. are considerably affected. Even on this count therefore there is a probability of diminution in his earning capacity as a direct result of the injuries received by him. In our opinion therefore the conclusion is inevitable that there is a real and for that matter substantial loss of his earning capacity. ( 17 ) WHAT then is the present value of the probable financial damage which he might suffer at some future time because of the aforesaid disadvantage ? she starting point for the assessment of the probable less should be the amount which he was earning at the time of the trial. In all his earning at that stage was Rs. 354. 00 per month. Upon rounding up it comes to Rs. 350. 00 per month. From the trend of his evidence it appears that he was looking for improvement in his financial prospects only by way of earning promotions to higher posts on the establishment of his present employers. The highest pos. to which he aspired to rise the post of an artist carried at the time of the trial basic pay in the grade of Rs. 200 to 700. He would not have earned that promotion however unless he had earned promotion to this intermediate post of semi-artist in the grade of Rs. 120 to 200. The evidence disclose that before earning promotion to the intermediate post be would have been required to put in about four to five years service in the order of helper and that to earn promotion to the post of artist he would have been required to put in about four to five years service as semi-artist. On that basis assuming that his future career would have run a smooth and destined course he would have been a helper until about 1976 and a semi-artist until about 1981. On that basis assuming that his future career would have run a smooth and destined course he would have been a helper until about 1976 and a semi-artist until about 1981. He could have aspired to attain the promotion post of artist earliest in 1981. There is no material on record with regard to the stages of the time scales of the two promotional posts or with regard to the admissible dearness allowance in the promotional posts. There is also no evidence in respect of chances of promotion to a still higher post or better paid employment elsewhere. It would not be unreasonable to assume however having regard to all the circumstances of the case that the highest that he would have probably earned had be not met with the accident would have been Rs. 1000. 00 per month. However this prospective rise in earnings would have to be spread over long years. Besides the probability on the clear hand that he might not have earned the two promotions at all even if he was not injured or on the other that he would still earn the promotions despite his handicap must also be taken be into account. In the same way the probability that he might or might not be thrown out of the job must be also taken into account. Therefore although between the actual earning at the rate of Rs. 350. 00 per month and probable future earning at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month the difference works out to Rs. 650. 00 per month the whole of that difference cannot be taken as reflecting the present value of the probable financial damage likely to be suffered in future. The circumstance that he is getting payment in present for the probable loss in future must also enter into account. Taking into consideration all relevant factors we would estimate one-third of Rs. 650. 00 per month as reflecting the present value of the loss of his future earning capacity per month. The datum figure on that basis works out to Rs. 217. 00 per month and to take a round figure we would determine the datum figure at Rs. 200 per month. On that basis the annual loss works out to Rs. 2400. 00. The datum figure on that basis works out to Rs. 217. 00 per month and to take a round figure we would determine the datum figure at Rs. 200 per month. On that basis the annual loss works out to Rs. 2400. 00. In the case of a young man with such a long working life ahead of him the multiplier of 15 can be appropriately taken. Accordingly damages under the head of loss of earning capacity would work out to Rs. 36 0 in place and stead of Rs. 15 0 compositely awarded by the Tribunal under this head as well as for the loss of amenities. ( 18 ) IN all therefore Niranjan becomes entitled to an additional award in the sum of Rs. 26 0 The claim in his appeal however is restricted to Rs. 10 0 and the actual award therefore can only be in the sum of Rs. 10 0 His appeal therefore fully succeeds whereas the appeal of the respondent-Municipal Corporation fails. 44 (B) BHARAT: (1) PAIN AND SUFFERING:there was no separate claim under this specific-head. However Rs. 50 0 were claimed as compensation for loss of eye-sight and brain damage and Rs. 5000. 00 for mental shock. It would be appropriate to consider the claim under the aforesaid two heads as including a claim for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10 0 for pain and suffering only. There is no award for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 19 ) NOW in our opinion the Tribunal erred in the first instance in grossly underestimating damages under this head having regard to the nature of injury and in the next place it erred in law in not taking into account altogether the sub-head of damages for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which in the instant case could not possibly have been ignored. ( 20 ) IT requires to be emphasized at the outset that injuries resulting in loss of eye/eyes or total or partial loss of eye-sight stand in a category by themselves. ( 20 ) IT requires to be emphasized at the outset that injuries resulting in loss of eye/eyes or total or partial loss of eye-sight stand in a category by themselves. Injuries which result in loss or partial loss of sense or faculty are not comparable with injuries involving loss of limb. It is true that when a man loses an eye in normal circumstances once he accustoms himself to mono-vision he does not suffer any great inconvenience. But one of the factors (and a most important factor) which must be taken into account in assessing damages is that if by chance he loses the remaining eye he becomes stonle-bind and is prevented from earning his living or greatly hindered in doing so and loses much of the pleasure of life. The chance of losing the remaining eye or eye-sigh in the remaining eye in a country like ours where the bane of blindness is on a high scale cannot be discounted as too remote. Even the ordinary process of aging brings about diminished vision for a variety of reasons if nothing else and the chance of the impairment of vision in the remaining eye is all the greater when the entire function of sight has to be taken over by that sole eye. . ( 21 ) IN Quinn V. J. W. Green (Painters) Ltd. (1966) 1 Q. E. 509 Salmon L. J. has observed as follows:" It is said that people who have lost one eye do not often lose the other. The evidence shows that persons who have lost the lens of one eye have a 2. 5 per cent greater chance than normal people of having a detached ratina in that eye and that this chance probably exceeds the chance of losing the other eye. I do not think that matters of this kind can he decided on nice mathematical calculations. It is manifest that although the risk is not very great in the ordinary course of things there is always a real risk that this man may lose the sight of his right eye. If he did he would as the result own this accident be completely blind because the left eye could not now be of any use to him". If he did he would as the result own this accident be completely blind because the left eye could not now be of any use to him". The learned Judge proceeded to observe that in case of loss of one eye the usual figure for damages under the head of pain and suffering was between *2000 and *3 0 and he thought that in 1965 the figure should be nearer *3 0 than 2 0 ( 22 ) THE aforesaid indication regarding the bracket of damages current in 1965 cannot obviously reflect the later trend of awards in England for the loss of sight in one eye. In the foot-note to paragraph 1147 at page 447 of Halsburys Laws of England Volume 12 4 Edition the learned authors have given a comparative table of the awards made the Courts its England from time to time for the loss of sight of one eye as an illustration of periodic reassess of damages at certain key points. The pattern as shown by the learned authors is as follows:between * 2000 and * 3000 - 19653500 - 1971 *4000 to * 4500 - 1974it would not be out of place to mention in this context that in the Quantum of Damages by Kemp and Kemp Vol. 2 Part 5 Section A paragraph 5001 it is mentioned that;"currently (in 1976) awards in excess of * 5000 for the loss of sight of one eye are to be expected"in the foot-note in Vol. 12 of Halsburys Laws of England referred to earlier the learned authors have noted that recent awards for the loss of sight in both eyes have been *200 for a man aged forty-seven with some pre-existing vulnerability to eye injury but for which the award would have been *24000. In the case of a young girl with additional disability *36000 were awarded for the loss of sight in both eyes. It would thus appear that in England damages are awarded on a very high and liberal scale in cases of loss of sense or faculty such as loss of one eye or vision in one eye and for total blindness resulting from accident. Conversion from one currency in to another may not be strictly relevant in the contact of the point under consideration having regard to the varying conditions in two countries. Conversion from one currency in to another may not be strictly relevant in the contact of the point under consideration having regard to the varying conditions in two countries. It might still be mentioned however that in terms of the rupee currency an award in the sum of 5000 for loss of vision in one eye would mean Rs. 90 0 taking the exchange ratio of * 1 = Rs. 18 which is the amount around which the exchange rate usually fluctuates. ( 23 ) WITH these prefatory remarks let us proceed to the actual assessment of damages in the instant case. The evidence discloses that the loss of vision in the right eye was almost instantaneous and that it is total and of a permanent nature in that it is not curable by means so far known. It had subjected the injured person to great pain soon after the accident. It had also brought about sleeplessness and constant pain in head. This after-effect continued right upto the date of trial although by that time there was noticeable improvement in regard to both the complaints. There was lack of concentration difficulty in reading at a stretch for sometime resulting from watering of eyes off and on. His memory was impaired. There was inconvenience and difficulty in walking climbing and alighting stairs and in crossing roads which continued right upto the date of trial. All this brought about the inevitable consequence of Bharat having to give up his studies in the College midstream at the Second Year B. Com. level. It also resulted in his giving up his favorite hobby of playing cricket and fool-ball All this has brought about mental depression loss of company and association and what is still more unfortunate loss of chances of matrimony. The scale of pain and suffering and the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life with all these disabilities and limitations can well be appreciated. The loss of sight of the eye is a tragedy for anyone hut particularly for a young man the loss is great and irreparable. Its distressing effects make it essential that the conventional award under this head should be in a substantial sum. This Court in case of a young boy aged 12 whose right leg above the ankle had been amputated has awarded a sum of Rs. Its distressing effects make it essential that the conventional award under this head should be in a substantial sum. This Court in case of a young boy aged 12 whose right leg above the ankle had been amputated has awarded a sum of Rs. 25 0 under this head (see Amul Rameshchandra v. Abbasbhai Kasambhai 19 G. L. R. 7 We have pointed out earlier that a case of loss of limb stands in a category apart from a case of loss of sense or faculty and more particularly of eyesight. The award must necessarily be on a higher scale in case of involvement of eyes. The trend in other countries also points in the same direction. Bearing in mind all the circumstances it appears to us that for loss of vision in one eye an award in the sum of Rs. 37 500 under this head would be just proper and adequate. This is the bracket of damages in which injury of this nature would currently fall in similar cases and the Tribunals would be well-advised to be guided by this award. ( 24 ) ON behalf of the respondent-Corporation two decisions were relied upon both unreported to urge in the first place that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was adequate and in the next place that in any case the award should not exceed Rs. 25 0 that being the amount awarded for loss of limb in Amuls case and on that basis awarded in another case involving removal of an eye-ball puruant to an injury received in accident. ( 25 ) IN First Appeal No. 672 of 1971 decided on 9/03/1973 (Vipinkumar Babubhai Surati v. The Government of Gujarat) by a Division Bench the claimant aged 24 was left with hardly any vision in his right eye and the vision which his left eye produced was only tubular with the result that he could see upto a certain distance in a straight line only with his left eye. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition as tortious act was not proved An appeal was preferred to this Court which reversed the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence and under the head of pain and suffering an award in the sum of Rs. 10 0 was made. In making an award in that sum reliance was placed upon the decision in Ranjtisings case. 10 0 was made. In making an award in that sum reliance was placed upon the decision in Ranjtisings case. Having regard to the later decision in Babu Mansa an award based on the decision in Ranjitsings case cannot possibly be pressed into service since there is need for periodic reassessment of damages at certain key points on account of fall in value of money. Besides we have earlier pointed out that even the decision in Amul Rameshchandra which followed the decision in Babu Mansa and awarded Rs. 25 0 as damages for partial loss of a limb cannot provide a comparable guide-line in cases of loss of sight in one eye. Under those circumstances in our opinion the unreported decision in Vipinkumars case can be of no assistance. ( 26 ) THE other unreported decision is in First Appeal No. 1176 of 1979 decided by a Division Bench on 26/02/1980 (Bhupendrakumar Kohli v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission ( XXII GLR 152) ). The plaintiff aged 30 in that case lost his right eye on account of an injury received by him while at work. The damaged eye was removed and an artificial eye replaced the same. The plaintiff to recover damages in the sum of Rs. 85 0 but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she defendant or its officers were guilty of negligence. The unsuccessful plaintiff brought the matter in appeal to this Court which found that negligence was proved. As regards damages under the head Pain and suffering the plaintiff pressed for an award in the sum of Rs. 15 0 before this Court and he further claimed a sum of Rs. 100 for loss of enjoyment and amenities of life. The claims were founded on the decision in Amul Rameshchandras case. This Court found that having regard to the decision in Amul Rameshchandra 8 sum of Rs 250 atleast was justifiably awardable. It was significantly observed however that since the plaintiffs full claim under this head was being allowed it was not necessary to make an in-depth examination of the question. This Court found that having regard to the decision in Amul Rameshchandra 8 sum of Rs 250 atleast was justifiably awardable. It was significantly observed however that since the plaintiffs full claim under this head was being allowed it was not necessary to make an in-depth examination of the question. Whether having regard to the distinct nature of two injuries and their varying tragic after effects (loss of limb in one case and loss of sight in another) a still higher amount was required to be awarded under the combined head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life for the loss of one eye. It was observed in terms that the question will have to be examined in a fit case where an occasion arises. The circumstances aforementioned and the observations expressly made in the judgment indicate that the said decision cannot be pressed into service to tie us down to the figure of Rs. 25 0 in awarding damages under this head in the instant case. ( 27 ) IN our considered view therefore the award of damages under this head requires to be raised from Rs. 10 0 to Rs. 37 500 On that basis the claimant would be entitled to an additional award in the sum of Rs. 27,500 (2) PECUNIARY LOSS: ( 28 ) THE claim under this head was not articulately spelt out. There was a claim for general damages in the sum of Rs. 500 for loss of eye-sight and brain damage and in addition there was a claim for special damages in the sum of Rs. 2000. 00 for costs of medicines and medical treatment. Under these two combined heads however the compensation for pecuniary loss must be taken to have been comprised. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 920. 00 as special damages for costs of medicines and medical treatment and Rs. 25,200 for economic loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now so far as special damages are concerned there appears to be an apparent mistake in awarding Rs. 920. 00 only although the Tribunal found that there was no challenge to the expenses incurred by the petitioner on medicines and medical treatment. On the basis of the unchallenged evidence of the claimant on this point he was entitled to an award in the sum of Rs. 1150. 920. 00 only although the Tribunal found that there was no challenge to the expenses incurred by the petitioner on medicines and medical treatment. On the basis of the unchallenged evidence of the claimant on this point he was entitled to an award in the sum of Rs. 1150. 00 and not Rs. 920. 00. This appears to be a clear case of mistake in calculation. The claimant will therefore be entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 230. 00 under this sub-head. 61 As regards the award of general damages for loss of working capacity meaning thereby earning capacity the award is obviously far too below a reasonable level. This is not a case of actual loss of future earnings as explained above. As in Niranjans case so here compensation if any will be awardable for loss of earning capacity which will have to be quantified by taking into account the financial damage which the claimant is likely to suffer because of his disadvantages in the labour market. ( 29 ) BHARAT was aged 21 at the time of the accident. He was prosecuting studies in the Second Year B. Com. Class at the material time. He had secured 58% marks in each of the two proceeding examinations namely S. S. C. Examination and Pre-Commerce Examination. In the First Year B. Com. Examination however he had failed in one subject. He had set his heart upon passing the B. Com. Examination and then passing the Chartered Accountants Examination and taking to that profession. However on account of the injury in the eye he had to leave studies in the midstream. There is no question now of his pursuing the professional career which it was his ambition to take to. He will have to give a new turn to his life and find some other means of livelihood which in all likelihood may not be as remunerative. It cannot possibly be doubted that in the labour market he would be at a disadvantage as compared to any other person with normal eye-sight and better qualifications. Finding an employment will not therefore be an easy task for him especially because he is not shown to possess any special skill. It cannot possibly be doubted that in the labour market he would be at a disadvantage as compared to any other person with normal eye-sight and better qualifications. Finding an employment will not therefore be an easy task for him especially because he is not shown to possess any special skill. The fact that although his family was in difficult financial circumstances he having lost his father long before the accident he was not employed even upto the date of trials itself proves the point. There is in his case therefore a substantial and real loss of earning capacity as a result of the injury received by him. ( 30 ) TURNING now to the question of assessment and quantification of the probable financial damage likely to be suffered by him certain basic distinctions between his case and that of Niranjan are required to be borne in mind. In Niranjans case there was a starting point based upon his earnings at the time of the trial. Precise data as regards his probable future advancement was also available. The handicaps and disabilities of the two individuals are also not comparable. By and large Niranjan can he said to be better placed in the labour market now than Bharat. However the beckground is different and so was the chosen course of life of the two prior to the accident. Bhoral was a College student at the time of the accident desirous of prosecuting higher studies and taking to a remunerative profession. Niranjan having passed the S. S. C. Examination chose not to prosecute further studies and took employment in a Mill at the basic monthly salary of Rs. 38. 00. The probable optimum and maximum earning capacity of each could not therefore have stood comparison in the pre-accident days. The comparative aspects on the other hand are that both have suffered loss of earning capacity and belong to the same age group and have an almost equal span of working life ahead of them. ( 31 ) IT is not easy to make an estimate of the present value of the probable financial damage which Bharat is likely to suffer as a result of he injury. Under the circumstances such as those which are present in the instant case one has only to make an estimate often a very rough estimate taking into account several uncertainties and imponderables. Under the circumstances such as those which are present in the instant case one has only to make an estimate often a very rough estimate taking into account several uncertainties and imponderables. Had he not met with the accident in all reasonable probability Bharat would have achieved his ambition of becoming a Chartered Accountant. He would have settled down in the profession in course of time and earned on an average about Rs. 12 0 to Rs. 18 0 per annum even on a conservative estimate. Now as a result of the accident there is a consequential change in the course of his life. His academic career has come to a premature end. There is no question therefore of his prosecuting his chosen career. There is no possibility also of his taking to any other profession or trade having regard to his overall background besides his handicap. It would appear that he will have to make a living by obtaining some employment which is suited to his handicap. Employment also will not be case to find and even if found it may not necessarily be steady. Still however it would be unreasonable to proceed on the basis that he would not be gainfully employed at all. With all his handicap and even taking into account the fact that at the date of the trial he was still unemployed it would not be unreasonable to presume that course of time he would find some employment and that over the long years of his working life his average earnings would come to somewhere between Rs. 6000. 00 and Rs. 9000. 00. This leaves a gap of about Rs. 6000. 00 to Rs. 9000. 00 per annum say Rs. 8000. 00 between what would have been his likely annual income had he not met with the accident and the average annual income which he still might earn with all his handicap. The whole of this amount however cannot be taken to be the present value of the financial damage which he might suffer in future on account of his injury. All sorts of uncertainties and imponderables have to be kept in mind. For some reason or the other unconnected with the accident he might not have completed his academic career or even if he had completed the same he might not have earned the income which he was reasonably expected tn earn. All sorts of uncertainties and imponderables have to be kept in mind. For some reason or the other unconnected with the accident he might not have completed his academic career or even if he had completed the same he might not have earned the income which he was reasonably expected tn earn. He might have become injured in circumstances in which he might have received no compensation from any source. He might have met with an untimely death. Allowance must be made for all these contingencies or vicissitudes of life on the other hand inspite of his handicap he might still find employment suitable to his present physical stale and his expected earnings might rise higher than that estimated above. The circumstance that he is getting payment in present for the probable loss in future must also enter into account. In this case therefore taking into account all relevant factors we would estimate onehalf of the amount of Rs. 8000. 00 per annum that is to say Its. 4000/- per annum as reflecting the present value of the loss of Bharats earning capacity. With such a long working life ahead of him a multiplier of 15 can be appropriately taken. Accordingly the damages under this head would work out to Rs. 600 in place and stead of Rs. 250 awarded by the Tribunal. ( 32 ) THE aforesaid discussion would show that there will be an additional award of damages in the sum of Rs. 27 500 under the combined head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs. 230. 00 as special damages for expenses of medicines and medical treatment and Rs. 34 800 under the head of loss of earning capacity. In all therefore Bharat becomes entitled to an additional award in the sum of Rs. 62 530 The claim in his appeal however is restricted to Rs. 20 880 The actual award therefore can only be in the sum of Rs. 20 880 His appeal therefore fully succeeds whereas the appeal of the respondent-Municipal Corporation fails. ( 33 ) IN the result First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 and First Appeal No. 823 of 1974 are dismissed with costs First Appeal No. 336 of 1975 and First Appeal No. 337 of 1975 are both fully allowed. 20 880 His appeal therefore fully succeeds whereas the appeal of the respondent-Municipal Corporation fails. ( 33 ) IN the result First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 and First Appeal No. 823 of 1974 are dismissed with costs First Appeal No. 336 of 1975 and First Appeal No. 337 of 1975 are both fully allowed. The appellant in each appeal is held entitled to an additional award in the sum of Rs. 100 and Rs. 20,880 respectively. The amount shall be paid with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the presentation of the claim petition till realisation. The appellant shall also be entitled to his costs of each appeal from the respondent-Municipal Corporation. No order as to costs as regards the other respondents. We also direct that since each claimant has succeeded fully in his respective appeal he shall also be entitled to the full costs of his claim application in the Tribunal. Orders accordingly. .