S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) AT the outset we may refer to a few relevant facts which have resulted in the present proceedings. On 7-8-1977 the appellant-claimant while going on his cycle towards Chhani road on the outskirts of the city of Baroda met with a serious vehicular accident when a motor-truck belonging to respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1 who has been deleted from the record of this appeal subsequently as he could not be served with the notice of this appeal came from behind and dashed with and knocked down the appellantclaimant and practically ran over him. The appellant was knocked down and was severely injured as he was crushed by the front left wheel of the truck. The accident left him with severe injuries including rupture of urethra. We will have an occasion to refer in details to the injuries suffered by the claimant in the later part of this judgment. At present it is sufficient to note that even though the claimant survived after the accident his life became miserable and he was reduced to a very unhappy and miserable state of physical existence. At the time of the accident the appellant-claimant was aged 26 years and unmarried. He claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1 0 0 in the motor accident claims petition. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the real nature of controversy between the parties centering round the question of an award of proper damages to the injured claimant it would be necessary for us to high-light the relevant facts which emerge on the record of this case. ( 3 ) (I) Bio-data of the appellant :- The appellant-claimant was aged 26 years at the time when he met with the accident in the evening of 7 As revealed by his oral evidence at ex. 87 he was first hit against his right hand by the truck which came from behind. He fell on the left of the front wheel of the truck and his abdomen was crushed by the front wheel of the truck and he become unconscious. As disposed to by the appellant-claimant he bad passed diploma course in automobile engineering. Before that he had studied upto pre-university. He was unmarried. At the time of the accident he was working with Mukund Iron and Steel Works from 1-6-1977 and was getting Rs. 300. As disposed to by the appellant-claimant he bad passed diploma course in automobile engineering. Before that he had studied upto pre-university. He was unmarried. At the time of the accident he was working with Mukund Iron and Steel Works from 1-6-1977 and was getting Rs. 300. 00 per month. His employer removed him from service due to his long absence from duty due to the accident in question. (II) Physical condition of the claimant after the accident: and medical treatment undergone by the claimant: ( 4 ) AS revealed from the oral evidence of the claimant himself who was examined at ex. 87 before the Tribunal. after he was run over by the offending truck he became unconscious. He was admitted to S. S. G. hospital Baroda. He was operated upon and given 10 to 12 bottles of blood when he was admitted to S. S. G. hospital Baroda on the date of the accident i. e. 7-8-1977. He was clinically examined by Dr. Govind Narayan Shukla who was working as Associate Professor in Surgery and was attached to S. S G. hospital and medical college Baroda. Dr. Shukla has been examined at e. x. 77. He found the following injuries on the claimant and for that he issued certificate of injuries at ex. 63. The said certificate revealed the injuries suffered by the claimant on account of the accident. They were noted as under:1 Abrided contusion on right side of abdomen with friction burns. 2 Abrided contusion of 12 x 6 on anterior part of right thigh and in inguinal region. 3 C. L. W. of 3 x 1 at anterior aspect of right thigh at upper third just near injury No. 2. 4 Abrasion of 1 x 1 size above right eye brow at fore-head. 5 C. L. W. of 12 x 1 size at right hand on dorsal aspect just near the thumb. 6 Multiple abrasions on dorsum of right hand. 7 Contusion and heamatoma on lateral aspect of right thigh near hip joint and pelvis and inability was more on both lower extremities. The certificate at ex 63 further reveals that exploratory and leparatomy was done on 7-8-1977. A retroperitimal heamatoma was found along with pubis right side and rupture of urethra. Railroad procedure was done by the doctor. ( 5 ) DR. Shukla in his oral evidence at ex. The certificate at ex 63 further reveals that exploratory and leparatomy was done on 7-8-1977. A retroperitimal heamatoma was found along with pubis right side and rupture of urethra. Railroad procedure was done by the doctor. ( 5 ) DR. Shukla in his oral evidence at ex. 77 stated that he performed the operations on the claimant as mentioned in the certificate ex. 63. Those operations were performed for two-fold purposes. Firstly to restore the continuity of the urethra if possible and secondly to prevent damage to exclude injury to any other organ-viscera in the abdomen. The doctor performed two operations. By the first operation he could restore the the continuity of the urethra and in the second operation he did skingrafting. He used the rail-road method to reconstruct the urethra. The catheter was kept in the urethra for about 3 weeks. The catheter in the bladder was kept for about 8 days. There was total rupture of urethra. It appears that in the first instance the claimant was hospitalised for 133 days in S. S. G. hospital immediately after the accident that is from 7 to 15-12-1977. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) THE claimant has deposed that his sexual parts urethra and other parts of the body were injured. He developed Hernia. We was not able to pass urine in the natural manner. There was continuous dripping of urine. He was using condom. During the day he had to take out the condom 8 to 10 times and to wear it again. His clothes became wet at night. He had to use one condom per day. He had to spend Rs. 50. 00 per month on washing of clothes and price of condoms. He further deposed before the Tribunal that he was unmarried and he could not enjoy sexual life. He could not get erection. He could not do any hard work and he could not sit on a chair to work for a long time. He could not sit on the ground nor could he pass stool while sitting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He could not do any hard work and he could not sit on a chair to work for a long time. He could not sit on the ground nor could he pass stool while sitting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The claimant further stated in his evidence that he cannot get job now because he cannot concentrate on work. The condom sometimes bursts suddenly and he cannot put on the pants. He has to wear Lungi. (III) Claim for damages for pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. ( 7 ) IN order to assess proper damages payable to the injured claimant under this head it is necessary to keep in view the settled legal position. In the case of Babu Mansa v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others 19 G. L. R. 492 a Division Bench of this court consisting of my learned brother and M. K. Shah J. had to consider the bracket of damages payable for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life in case of a young injured boy aged 15 who had suffered several physical handicaps. In that case the injured boy had suffered multiple injuries in the course of the accident. His right leg was fractured. A nail was inserted into his right leg. Even after the period of one year and 8 months from the date of the accident after-effects of the injuries on the right leg had subsisted. The injured was limping on account of shortening of his leg by half centimeter. There was wasting of the thigh and there was also fixed flexion deformity of hip. Even after such a long period the injured was able to walk only with the support of a stick. He was not in a position to sit cross legged and could squat only with support. There was also a fracture of the arm and it also left some defect. There was some injury on the right eye-brow and consequential removal of a piece of bone from near the eye-brow. He was unable to open his eye fully. In the light of the aforesaid injuries this court after considering relevant law on the subject awarded Rs. There was also a fracture of the arm and it also left some defect. There was some injury on the right eye-brow and consequential removal of a piece of bone from near the eye-brow. He was unable to open his eye fully. In the light of the aforesaid injuries this court after considering relevant law on the subject awarded Rs. 15 0 by way of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. ( 8 ) IN case of Amul Rameshchandra Gandhi v. Abbasbhai Kasambhai Diwan and Others 19 G. L. R. 721 the same Division Bench of this court had to consider this very question in the light of the injuries suffered by a young boy aged 12 years whose right leg was amputated from above the ankle. It was found in the case of Amul (supra) that the bones muscles and tissues of the right foot were crushed. Operation was performed on the same day and the right foot of the appellant Amul was amputated from near the ankle. As a result of the amputation he was required to use crutches. He had got an artificial leg prepared at Poona which he used along with special shoes while going to the school. It was noticed by this court that as a result of the amputation of the right leg above ankle; the young boy with whom the court was concerned was required to use crutches. He got prepared an artificial leg which he used alongwith special shoes. He had to give up cycling because of the injuries suffered by him. He could not walk long distance at a time. He had to give up many pleasures and amenities of life. He had to seek support from outside agency even in regard to his day to day pursuits of life. In the light of the sufferings of the boy this court observed in the aforesaid decision that when our own court had awarded in the year 1971 a sum of Rs. 17 500 for the loss of limbin the case of a young girl aged about 11 and also in the case of an adult aged about 39 the court was of the opinion that an award in the sum of Rs. 17 500 for the loss of limbin the case of a young girl aged about 11 and also in the case of an adult aged about 39 the court was of the opinion that an award in the sum of Rs. 25 0 under this head would be just and proper in the case before them and it was held that this was the bracket of damages into which this kind of injury would currently fall. It is necessary to note that claimant Amul in the aforesaid decision had suffered amputation of one leg above the ankle. ( 9 ) IN the case of Mahomed Hanif Dallu v. Lunkaran Ganpatram Sharma and Another 21 G. L R. 412 decided by a Division Bench of this court consisting of B. K. Mehta J. and myself we had again to consider the question of award of damages under the head of pain shock and suffering caused to a young injured claimant who had both of his legs amputated on account of the accidental injuries. In that judgment we noted the fact that in case of amputation of one leg this court in Amuls case (supra) had awarded Rs. 25 0 to the injured claimant by way of pain shock and suffering on account of loss of one leg above ankle. In Mahomeds case the injured victim had both his legs amputated above the knee joint. Keeping in view the decision of this court in Amuls case (supra) in Mahomeds case we awarded total damages of Rs. 35 0 on the head of pain shock and suffering. ( 10 ) WE may now notice a different set of cases in which this court considering the gravity of the injuries suffered by the claimants in the background of prolonged hospitalisation thought fit to award different amounts of damages under the head of pain shock and suffering caused to the concerned claimants when they had not suffered any loss of limbs. ( 11 ) IN the case of Bhaskerbhai Khandubhai Desai v. Ramanlal Nathubhai Patel and Others A. I. R. 1978 Gujarat 158 decided by a Division Bench of this court consisting of my learned brother sitting with M. K. Shah J. the court had to consider the extent of pain shock and suffering suffered by the victim who was a young boy aged about 12 years who got knocked down by a motor truck which came from behind. As a result of the accident the victim in that case was sandwiched between the vehicle and the milestone which stood by the side of the road and the result was that his legs were crushed. The victim was taken to the Civil Hospital Surat for treatment. He was hospitalised from 10-10-1974 to 23 He was then removed to V. S. Hospital at Ahmedabad whore he was admitted on 24-10-19714. He was confined to the hospital upto 12 He was once again admitted in the V. S. Hospital Ahmedabad on 15-4-1975 and discharged on 10-10-1975. There was further period of confinement in the same hospital from 27-141-1975 to 13-1-1976. On 21 he was again admitted in the same hospital and he was in the hospital on 6-3-1976 on which date Dr. M. M. Desai an Orthopaedic Surgeon under whose treatment the claimant was all throughout the period of hospitalisation at Ahmedabad gave evidence at the trial. In the background of the injuries suffered by the claimant on both of his legs and the prolonged period of hospitalisation and the agony which the claimant suffered all throughout his life after the accident this court came to the conclusion that an award of Rs. 22 500 would represent bracket of damages in which this kind of injury involving two vital limbs would currently fall. ( 12 ) WE may now turn to two later judgments of this court to which my learned brother was a party and wherein a Division Bench of this Court had to consider the question of award of proper damages by way of pain shock and suffering and inconvenience in life suffered by the victims who bud suffered from entirely different types of injuries which fell in distinct categories. In First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 with First Appeal No. 336 of 1974 and Others (Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. In First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 with First Appeal No. 336 of 1974 and Others (Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel) decided by my learned brother sitting with R. C. Mankad J. on March 18 19 and 20 1980 the victims of the accident had suffered different types of injuries on account of the vehicular accident in which they were involved. The two injured claimants in the aforesaid cases were young men who were traveling in a rickshaw at the relevant time when the said rickshaw collided with a municipal bus. The accident left severe injuries on both the victims. So far as claimant Niranjan was concerned he was aged 21 at the time of the accident. The injury which he had suffered was a fracture of the right femur. The injury had left a permanent handicap. Even at the date of the trial he had a limping Bait 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 walk slowly and for a very short distance. The pain in the leg persisted. There was tenderness in the region of the right greater trochanter. A nail had to be inserted at the site of the fracture. Although there was slight variation in the degree of disability suffered by the injured person as compared to injured Babu Mansa whose injuries have been considered earlier by us while we dealt with the case of Babu Mansa (supra) this court in Niranjans case observed that the disability was still readily identifiable and the severity of the injuries was comparable and therefore the damages awardable to him would fall in the same bracket as in Babu Mansus case. While coming to that conclusion the court observed that it would be justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 15 0 to injured Niranjan although his injuries were slightly different as compared to those suffered by Babu Mansa and in that connection the court kept in view the consumer price index numbers for industrial workers all India general index which disclosed further fall in the purchasing power of rupee between the date of the decision in Babu Mansa and the decision in Niranjans case. In that connection it was observed that fall in the value of money itself would justify an award of Rs. 15000. In that connection it was observed that fall in the value of money itself would justify an award of Rs. 15000. 00 under the head for the injury suffered by Niranjan even assuming that there was a slight difference between the severity of injuries in the two cases. It was observed that indeed this was the bracket of damages in which this kind of injury will currently fall in similar cases meaning thereby at the time when the court was called upon to assess the damages awardable to such injured claimant as in Niranjans case. This clearly shows that even though a given injury may fall in more or less the same bracket the passage of time which elapsed between the earlier award of damages for such injuries and the time when the court is called upon to assess such damages subsequently will have a direct impact on the evaluation of proper damages under such beads of damages especially in the background of a further fall in the purchasing power of money. ( 13 ) IN the aforesaid decision the court had also to consider the question of awarding proper damages under the head of pain shock and suffering for victim Bharat who was a co-passenger with Niranjan in the rickshaw which met with the accident. So far as victim Bharat was concerned he had suffered graver injuries and they had left a more severe impact on him. While dealing with the question the court noted that victim Bharat had lost vision of one eye and had also suffered brain damage on account of the unfortunate accident. In such type of injuries the pain shock and suffering caused to the concerned victim would naturally be on higher side. In the background of the aforesaid severe injuries suffered by victim Bharat my learned brother speaking for the Division Bench observed as under:" It requires to be emphasised 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. 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 be becomes stone-blind and is prevented from earning his living or greatly hindered in doing so and loses much of the pleasure of life". In the aforesaid decision an earlier English judgment of Queens Bench in Quinn v. J. W. Green (Painters) Ltd. . (1966) I. Q. B. 509 was noted wherein for loss of one eye proper compensation under the head of pain and suffering was found to be awardable between *2000 and * 3000. In this connection it was observed by this court that 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. Emerging pattern in the comparable awards all spread over time in England showed a rising trend. In that connection it was noted 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. It was further observed that conversion from one currency into another may not be strictly relevant in the context 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. Taking an overall view of the severality of the impact caused to victim Bharat by accidental injuries suffered by him this court held that award of damages of Rs. 37 500 under the head of pain shock and suffering awardable to victim Bharat would be justified. 18 which is the amount around which the exchange rate usually fluctuates. Taking an overall view of the severality of the impact caused to victim Bharat by accidental injuries suffered by him this court held that award of damages of Rs. 37 500 under the head of pain shock and suffering awardable to victim Bharat would be justified. ( 14 ) THE aforesaid decision of this court in First Appeal No. 822 of 1974 and group pertained to different types of injuries suffered by injured victims wherein one victim Bharat had suffered loss of vision in one eye. ( 15 ) THIS court was again concerned with the consideration of the question about awarding of proper damages under the head of pain shock and suffering to the victim of a vehicular accident who had suffered multiple injuries including loss of vision in one eye and other severe injuries which included disfigurement of the face in First Appeal No. 619 of 1978 decided by my learned brother sitting with R. C. Mankad J. on 28/06/1980 (Ashish Jivrajbhai v. Ashvinbhai Himatlal and Ors.) Injured victim Ashish who was a young boy aged 7 at the time of the accident was knocked down by a fast driven motor-cycle which came from behind with excessive speed. The accident left serious injuries on the victim. He lost vision in one eye. In addition thereto there was some disfigurement of the face on account of the eye-ball of the right eye bulging out of the socket and turning opaque white. It was also found that the effect of hemiplegia was evident even upto the date of hearing of the appeal before this court. The Tribunal in that case had awarded Rs. 10 0 under the head of pain shock and suffering and Rs. 6 0 for personal injuries due to loss of right eye. In all therefore award of Rs. 16 0 was made under that head. My learned brother speaking for the Division Bench noted that the victim had two periods of hospitalisation in two different hospitals and the total period of hospitalization was about 3 1/2 months. He was unconscious for the first few days and semi-conscious for a few more days thereafter. He suffered intense pain during the period of hospitalization. He underwent three operations. He was unconscious for the first few days and semi-conscious for a few more days thereafter. He suffered intense pain during the period of hospitalization. He underwent three operations. One operation was performed to relieve him of breathing difficulty whereas the other two were performed in connection with the brain and eye injuries. It was therefore found that it was a case of injuries suffered by the claimant which left in their train tragic consequences lasting for the lifetime of the injured. The brain injury had resulted in spastic hemiplegia. There was consequential weakness and loss of co-ordination of the upper and lower left limbs. It was also found that the gait of the victim was not absolutely normal. The permanent disability assessed by Dr. Vaidya Orthopaedic Surgeon who examined the claimant was fixed at 400/. for the left upper limb and 30% for the left lower limb. It was noted that pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life on account of restricted movements clumsiness inconvenience etc. with all these disabilities and limitations can well be appreciated especially in the case of a young boy aged 12. It was noted that this was not the only tragic after-effect of the accident. The brain injury which led to abscess formation in the right eye had resulted in loss of vision and it had brought about disfigurement. These were the permanent and irreversible consequences. The victims academic career also appeared to have been affected for he failed in the examination that he took in the next year after the accident. There was also a complaint about loss of memory. The loss of sight of the eye which is a tragedy for anyone had an accentuated effect on the life and career of a young boy. The chances of matrimony were bound to be affected if not altogether lost. Thus taking an over-all view of the nature of injuries suffered by claimant Ashish this court in the aforesaid decision awarded a global amount of Rs. 55 0 to the injured claimant under the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life resulting from multiple injuries. Thus taking an over-all view of the nature of injuries suffered by claimant Ashish this court in the aforesaid decision awarded a global amount of Rs. 55 0 to the injured claimant under the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life resulting from multiple injuries. ( 16 ) A resume of the aforesaid decisions of this court shows that for different types of injuries suffered by the concerned claimants their claims for compensation under the bead of pain shock and suffering will fall in different brackets. For personal injuries which left permanent pernicious effects on the victim for the rest of the life damages awarded under the head of pain shock and suffering would usually be of substantial amount. As observed in Amuls case (supra) not only such awards would be of substantial amount but they were liable to be revised upwards in view of the fall in the value of money. It is in the background of the aforesaid decisions of this court that the question which has been posed for our consideration has to be resolved. It must be stated in the forefront that the peculiar nature of in juries suffered by the victim in the present case does not fall within any of the brackets of injuries with which this court was concerned in the aforesaid decisions. The nature of injuries suffered by him represents a class by itself? and the question of award of proper damages on the head of pain shock and suffering that such injuries may leave on the victim has arisen really for the first time before us for consideration. No Indian decision on this question was brought to our notice. We therefore have to turn our gaze westward across the seas and try to find out as to how English courts under similar circumstances had dealt with the problem. We may reproduce with advantage at this stage different types of awards which the English courts had passed from time to time over years in cases of victims who had suffered similar types of injuries which the victim in the present case had the misfortune to suffer. We may reproduce with advantage at this stage different types of awards which the English courts had passed from time to time over years in cases of victims who had suffered similar types of injuries which the victim in the present case had the misfortune to suffer. ( 17 ) WE have also a case noted in Kemp and Kemp wherein in 1959 award of * 3000 was made in the case of Giblin v. Sir Robert Mcalpine and Sons ( 27/07/1959 by Glyn-Jones J.) when a male aged 45 suffered from fracture of pelvis and severe damage to urethra which was severe. The victim had to undergo long and painful treatment. He was 11 weeks in hospital and unable to return to work for 13 months. Because of nature of injury and painful treatment damages were higher than usual. The aforesaid case has been noted in Kemp and Kemp Vol. II Sweet and Maxwell 1975 p. 971. ( 18 ) A resume of the aforesaid awards of English courts leaves no room for doubt that accidental injuries which leave serious effects on the victims who lose partially or fully their sex functions are considered as forming a class by themselves and for which a higher rate of damages by way of pain shock and suffering has to be awarded than in the case of mere injury or loss of a limb. It can also be observed that from 1952 onwards all throughout over a period of years the trend in the awards of damages shows an upward rise though in each case assessment of damages would depend upon the age factor and the impact of the injuries sustained by the concerned victim. The aforesaid analysis shows that the courts in England have raised awards in such cases under the head of non-pecuniary loss by almost five times between 1952 and 1977. ( 19 ) IT is also seen from the aforesaid details of various awards of English courts pertaining to injuries which form a class by themselves that in case of impotence suffered by a victim of the accident various amounts ranging from * 7500 to *11000 were awarded. In case of severe injury to urethra itself award of *3000 was held to be proper by way of damages for pain shock and suffering undergone by the concerned victim. In case of severe injury to urethra itself award of *3000 was held to be proper by way of damages for pain shock and suffering undergone by the concerned victim. Thus awards of English Courts in such cases where severe injuries were left on the victim which visited him with impotence as well as injuries to urethra and pelvis reflect an over-all assessment of damages in the range of * 12000 to 15000 upto 1977. As we have already noted above while discussing the case of injured victim Bharat in first appeal No. 822 of 1974 (supra) conversion from one currency to another may not be strictly relevant in the context of the point under consideration having regard to the varying conditions in two countries. Still however it may broadly indicate a rising trend in awarding damages in such cases which can be well visualised even while considering the question of granting proper damages to any injured victim who had suffered similar injuries as in the present case. As the exchange rate of *1- Rs. 18. 00 can be taken to be almost a settled exchange rate it can well be visualised that the amount of damages awarded by the English courts in such cases which ranged from * 12000 to * 150007 when converted into Indian currency would represent a range of Rs. 2 16 0 (* 1200 x 18) to 2 70 0 (*15000 x 18) though we must again emphasise that they may not be strictly relevant while considering the question of damages in the background of Indian conditions and the purchasing power of Indian rupee. But it appears clear to us that the damages awardable in such cases where the injuries suffered by the victim fall in this special class have got to be on a substantially higher side as compared to the damages awardable in case of injuries to or loss of limbs. We must also point out that in cases like the present where the victim has suffered multiple injuries of very severe nature and who has been reduced to a miserable state of life assessment of damages under the present head has to be made on an over-all estimate of the scale of pain suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life on account of the multiple injuries. In other words an integrated view of the totality of the after-effects of the manifold injuries must be taken so as to assess and award a lump-sum compensation for the pain and suffering past present and future and for the lost pleasures and enjoyment of life. It would not be proper to individually assess damages under this head qua each injury and then to aggregate the same and make a cumulative award under this head. There is a great risk of duplication in segregating and separately assessing compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment flowing out of each injury. Only a total or overall view can insulate against overlapping. It would be permissible indeed necessary in some cases however to view each injury and to assess the consequential deprivation and been to estimate the totality of suffering pain and lost pleasures and comforts of life to arrive at a just compensation (vide observation in the case of injured Ashish in First Appeal No. 619 of 1978 ). ( 20 ) IN the background of the aforesaid legal position we have to consider the question about awarding proper damages to the appellantclaimant. To recapitulate the appellant on account of the injuries caused to him had suffered severe pain as his abdomen was crushed under the wheel of the truck. He had abrided contusion on the right side of abdomen with friction burns as well as on the anterior part of the right thigh. He had two contused lacerated wounds on the right thigh and right hand and abrasion over the right eye brow and multiple abrasion on the right hand. As the certificate of injuries ex. 63 shows the injuries were of very severe nature. As deposed to by Dr. Shukla the urethra of the claimant was totally ruptured. He had twice been operated at the S. S. G. Hospital at Baroda when he was first admitted as indoor patient after the accident. Skin grafting had also to be done and rail-road method had to be resorted to to reconstruct his urethra. Catheter was kept in the bladder for 8 days. The patient had difficulty in walking and he was suffering from continuous dripping of urine. His soft tissues were damaged and no improvement could be expected in his condition. On the contrary deterioration in this condition was apprehended. Catheter was kept in the bladder for 8 days. The patient had difficulty in walking and he was suffering from continuous dripping of urine. His soft tissues were damaged and no improvement could be expected in his condition. On the contrary deterioration in this condition was apprehended. Hernia had also developed as after-effect of the accidental injuries. The evidence to which we have made a detailed reference earlier shows that thrice the claimant had to be hospitalised in S. S. G. Hospital at Baroda and the last hospitalisation was just at the time when deposition of the claimant before the Tribunal was recorded in January 1979 itself. He was twice hospitalised at Madras. As deposed to by Mr. Shukla even in January 1979 at the time of the trial and a few days prior to recording of the evidence of the claimant he had examined the claimant who had complaint of retention and inability to pass urine and dilation had to be done even at that time and the patient had suffered from difficulty in sitting and walking not because of the dripping but due to injury to soft tissues. This shows the extent of suffering undergone by the claimant. As the claimant had deposed before the Tribunal during his hospitalisation at the S. S. G. Hospital at Baroda for the first time he was given 10 to 12 bottles of blood that he was removed to the hospital in unconscious state; that after the accident he was not able to pass urine in natural manner and continued to suffer from dripping urine and he had to use condoms. During day times he had to take out condom 8 to 10 times and to wear it again. His clothes used to get wet during night time. Condom some times burst suddenly. He cannot put on pants and had to wear Lungi. The inconvenience hardship and shock suffered by the claimant on account of the aforesaid incovenience and hardships can be well imagined. . ( 21 ) ADDED to all these difficulties of pain and suffering was the most servere injury visited upon the claimant viz. loss of sexual power. The claimant has in terms deposed before the Tribunal at ex. 87 that be is not able to pass urine in natural manner and that he does not 8et erection and he cannot enjoy sex life. loss of sexual power. The claimant has in terms deposed before the Tribunal at ex. 87 that be is not able to pass urine in natural manner and that he does not 8et erection and he cannot enjoy sex life. The only cross-examination offered to the aforesaid evidence of the witness was to the effect that he had no occasion to attempt sexual intercourse. It goes without saying that it may be so as he was unmarried. But that does not mean that what he says on oath regarding physical state of his condition so far as this aspect of the matter was concerned must be dubbed as untrue. It does not stand the test of probability that the injured claimant who was a young unmarried man would make a damning admission against his own interest which would brand him as impotent for the rest of his life only for the sake of a few thousand rupees of compensation. We must observe at this stage that even the Tribunal has held that the case of the claimant that he was rendered impotent may be true. But the only difficulty which the Tribunal felt was that though the medical evidence does not negative the plea of the claimant that he had become impotent and that may be true there was no conclusive evidence on this point. With respect; it is difficult to appreciate what conclusive evidence can be there in such a case save and except the unshaken testimony on oath by the claimant who has suffered such physical handicap and which testimony has well stood the test of probability. It is necessary to recall at this stage the evidence of Dr. Shukla who stated on oath that when the patient was examined by him at the second time in October 1978 he complained of impotence; that he expected no improvement in future in the physical condition of the patient and the complaint of the appellant of his impotence was likely to be true though it would not significantly reduce the span of his life. This was much worse for the claimant as his suffering and hardship would continue for the remaining long span of life and he would continue to lead a miserable existence for the rest of his life. The accident had reduced him to a miserable state with no prospect of a married life. This was much worse for the claimant as his suffering and hardship would continue for the remaining long span of life and he would continue to lead a miserable existence for the rest of his life. The accident had reduced him to a miserable state with no prospect of a married life. He would have to live a socially isolated life with no chance of progeny. It is pertinent to note that if the grievance about impotence was a pure after-thought on the part of the claimant he would never have complained about the same to the doctor in October 1978 who would have in all probabilities on clinical examination verified the truth of the said complaint. The aforesaid conduct of the claimant in making a complaint about impotence before the doctor in October 1978 clearly shows that he had felt this genuine handicap and he wanted some relief from the doctor on that account. As deposed to by Dr. Shukla the complaint was likely to be true and no improvement may be expected in future in the physical state of the claimant. We therefore find that the claimant has clearly established that the unfortunate accident had reduced him to a stage of impotency which would linger on till the last breath of his life. The pain shock and suffering and mental and physical agony which the claimant will suffer on account of such an injury can be well appreciated and visualised. No amount of money can afford any real compensation for such type of miserable state of health in which the claimant had been left on account of this unfortunate accident. Apart from impotency he has suffered multiple injuries on vital parts of the body which had required for him prolonged hospitalisation more than once at Baroda as well as at Madras. These grievous injuries suffered by the claimant have reduced his life to a shadow of its original self. 11 is easy to visualise the extent of suffering of a young unmarried man like the claimant who because of the accident is now destined to live a solitary forelone and sordid life as his future marriage prospects are totally ruined. We can also well realise the social inhibition and stigma which may be suffered by the claimant who will have to drag on the rest of his solitary life being widely known as an impotent person. We can also well realise the social inhibition and stigma which may be suffered by the claimant who will have to drag on the rest of his solitary life being widely known as an impotent person. No amount of monetary compensation can alleviate the mental anguish and physical torture which the claimant is doomed to suffer for the rest of his life on account of the injuries inflicted on him by the tort-feasor. He has been practically relegated to suffer solitary confinement with a shattered and battered body with most of the future pleasures of life snuffed out. The claimant is left with a totally defunct life which is worse than death and which resembles an empty-egg-shell with its contents taken out. Considering the totality of the impact of all those injuries and their after-effects we deem it fit to award him by way of global assessment an amount of Rs. 75 0 as damages under the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life instead of Rs. 25 0 as awarded by the Tribunal. To say the least it would be the most conservative and modest amount which can currently be awarded to the claimant for the type of injuries suffered by him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (The rest of the judgment is not material for the reports.) appeal allowed. .