S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) NOW we have to consider the question of awarding adequate compensation to the claimant on the head of pain. shock and suffering and loss of amenities in life which the severe accidental head injury had left on the claimant. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant who had suffered such injury should be awarded the conventional amount of Rs. 3 0 as just and reasonable compensation. We find that the aforesaid award of the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and it is far below the line drawn by the decided cases which had to deal with similar question especially the cases which came up for consideration before the English courts. Before we proceed to deal with the question of assessment of proper damages on the head of pain shock and suffering in the light of the peculiar injuries suffered by the claimant it would be a profitable to have a look at the settled legal position on this aspect. ( 2 ) IN first Appeal No. 822 of 1974 and group decided by learned brother P. D. Desai J. and R. C. Mankad J. on 18/19/20-3-1980 Ahmedabad Muni. corpn. v. Niranjan Ambalal Patel 23 (2) G. L. R. 180) and to which we have made a detailed reference earlier this court had an occasion to consider the question regarding grant of proper damages under the head of pain shock and suffering when the injured claimant had suffered severe injuries on different parts of his body including his eye. While considering this question my learned brother speaking for the Division Bench in terms observed:"injuries which result in loss or partial loss of sense or faculty are not comparable with injuries involving loss of limb and that such injuries result in loss or impairment of capital asset as these faculties can be so treated". While considering this question my learned brother speaking for the Division Bench in terms observed:"injuries which result in loss or partial loss of sense or faculty are not comparable with injuries involving loss of limb and that such injuries result in loss or impairment of capital asset as these faculties can be so treated". ( 3 ) IN first Appeal No. 619 of 1978 decided on 23/06/1980 (Ashish Jivrajbhai v. Ashwinbhai Himatlal 23 (2) G. L. R. 290) by a Division Bench consisting of my learned brother sitting with R. C. Mankad J. had again to deal with the question regarding awarding of proper damages under the head of pain shock and suffering caused to a young victim aged about 7 at the time of the accident who was left with serious multiple injuries one of which was brain injury which had resulted in spastic hemiplegia. The victim in that case had suffered various external injuries and internal injury on the brain. He was knocked down by a motorcycle when he was proceedings on foot towards his school. The internal injury sustained by him on the brain rendered him unconscious immediately after the accident and he started bleeding from his left ear. His clinical examination at the hospital revealed that he did not respond to painful stimulus. His pupils were bilaterally semi-diluted and they reacted sluggishly. He remained unconscious for about 15 days after his admission and thereafter for a period of about 20 days he was semi-conscious. As he was experiencing difficulty in respiration he was operated upon on 18/07/1975 Another operation was performed upon him on 23/07/1975 for his brain injury. All throughout the period of his hospitalisation he suffered intense pain. When he was discharged from the hospital on 29/09/1975 the claimant was in the process of recovery though there was weakness or limbs. He was unable to walk and to speak properly. In the light of the aforesaid injuries suffered by victim Ashish in the aforesaid case with which this court was concerned my learned brother speaking for the Division Bench observed that the case before them was one in which the injuries sustained by the claimant had left in their trial tragic consequences lasting for the lifetime of the claimant. The brain injury has resulted in spastic hemiplegia. There was consequential weakness and loss of coordination of the upper and lower left limbs. The brain injury has resulted in spastic hemiplegia. There was consequential weakness and loss of coordination of the upper and lower left limbs. It was also noticed that there was weakness of grip so far as the left hand was concerned and that the gait was not absolutely normal. It was further noted that the brain injury which led to abscess formation in the right eye had resulted in loss of vision and it had brought about disfigurement. There were permanent and irreversible consequences. It was further observed that the multiple injuries suffered by the claimant Ashish in that case had taken very heavy toll and the after effects were multiple. Not only the limbs but also the faculty of sight of the unfortunate victim of the accident were involved. Under these circumstances it was held by any learned brother in the aforesaid Division Bench decision that 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 was further observed that it was not proper to individually assess damages under the said head qua each injury and then to aggregate the same and make a cumulative award under this head There was 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 then to estimate the totality of suffering pain and lost pleasures and comforts of life to arrive at a just compensation. Keeping in mind several circumstances of the case before them and taking an over-all view of the scale of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life resulting from multiple injuries suffered by the injured victim Ashish this court awarded a global amount of Rs. 55 0 under the head of pain shock and suffering to the appellant in first appeal No. 619 of 1978. 55 0 under the head of pain shock and suffering to the appellant in first appeal No. 619 of 1978. (23 (2) G. L. R. 290) ( 4 ) IT is therefore clear that while awarding just and adequate damages under the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life to an injured claimant an over-all view of multiple injuries suffered by the claimant on account of the accident and their after-effects has to be taken and considering the impact left on the victim by the injuries the aforesaid assessment has to be made. It is now time for us to look at different awards passed from time to time by the English courts which were concerned with similar question of assessment of proper damages under the head of pain shock and suffering caused to the victims who had misfortune to suffer brain injuries coupled with other injuries on account of the tortious acts of others who were called upon to answer their claims for damages. We give herein in a tabular from relevant awards of the English courts with a view to present a comprehensive picture that emerges from the different awards passed by different English courts over yearthe aforesaid decisions of English courts rendered from time to time show that when the injured victims were not left with any physical after effects but were left with a sort of fobia or fear complex regarding their driving motor vehicles Dr. from being driven in motor vehicles as passengers different amounts of general damages by way of pain shock and suffering ranging from * 750/- in 1951 of * 1650/-in 1971 were awarded. If in addition to the mere psychic set back or fear complex physical injuries were left of recurring nature * 1750/- were awarded to an aged man of 61 years. Thus for a young man award would be on much higher side as is found from the case wherein a young boy of 18 years was awarded * 6100 when a brain injury caused to him as a result of the injury had left a permanent physical defect by way of the loss of memory and other deleterious effects. Thus for a young man award would be on much higher side as is found from the case wherein a young boy of 18 years was awarded * 6100 when a brain injury caused to him as a result of the injury had left a permanent physical defect by way of the loss of memory and other deleterious effects. So far as more serious physical effects of brain injury were concerned the English court awarded 12 0 1972 which is practically double the award made in favour of a boy of 18 years who had suffered injuries of lesser magnitude hut which had left permanent physical effect on account of the brain injury. We therefore find that for similar types of injuries which the present claimant has suffered the English court in 1974 thought it fit to grant by way of general damages on account of pain shock and suffering an amount of * 6 100 It is true that the Awards of English courts cannot automatically be followed so far as this country is concerned as it has an entirely different type of economy mode of living of its people and standard of life. Still those English decisions give a general indication about the extent of damages which can be awarded with reference to serious brain injury coupled with the lingering physical efforts left by them on the victims. The resume of the English decisions shows 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 memory and other side effects resulting from such brain injury. 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 * 6 100 for loss of brain injury suffered by the injured claimant which had resulted in the loss of memory etc. would work upto Rs. 1 9 800 taking the exchange rate of * 1=rs. 18 which is the equation around which the exchange rate usually fluctuates. would work upto Rs. 1 9 800 taking the exchange rate of * 1=rs. 18 which is the equation around which the exchange rate usually fluctuates. ( 5 ) WE have to consider the question regarding awarding of proper damages to the present injured claimant in the background of the aforesaid legal position which emerges from various decisions of this court and also keeping in view the general trend of liberal awards of damages under this head by English courts. To recapitulate the present claimant had suffered serious and grave after-effects on account of the head injury suffered by him in the accident as revealed by the evidence of Dr. Manubhai Patel ex-124. The claimant had suffered from retrograde amnesia and post-traumatic nervous instability. He had post concussional nervous instability resulting in headache poor attention irritability inability to concentrate on consistent and routine work. He bad no chance of recovery of retrograde amnesia. According to Dr. Patel it would not be safe for the claimant to drive any motor vehicle in future. As further deposed to by Dr. Patel the patient would not be able to do any work requiring constant concentration and he could only do manual work in fields in ordinary agricultural seasons but no responsible work connected with agriculture. The evidence of Dr. Patel further reveals that he had impairment of attention and speed of perception when he examined the patient at AHMEDABAD. Thus the melody from which the claimant suffered on account of the head injury as a result of the accident had left him with prolonged incurable pernicious after-effects. He had suffered from loss of memory and retrograde amnesia. They came to stay with him and it was not safe for him to drive any motor vehicle. Thus he had suffered multiple adverse effects on account of the head injury and they were all of permanent nature. It can therefore be broadly seen that there was severe irreparable impairment of his faculty which as noted by various decisions of this court to which we have made reference earlier amounted to impairment of capital asset. Thus he had suffered multiple adverse effects on account of the head injury and they were all of permanent nature. It can therefore be broadly seen that there was severe irreparable impairment of his faculty which as noted by various decisions of this court to which we have made reference earlier amounted to impairment of capital asset. For this type of multiple injuries having pernicious adverse effects which will linger on with the claimed for all time to come and especially when the claimant aged at 25 at the time of the accident had to drag on the rest of his life having lost all chances of carrying on his occupation as a car driver and being reduced to pitiable state of an agricultural labourer an over-all assessment of damages on the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which had resulted to the claimant on account of the accident will have to be made. It must be noted that the extent of the injuries suffered by victim Ashish in the first appeal No 822 of 1974 and group (supra) were of more severe nature as compared to the injuries suffered by the present claimant. Still the injuries which he has suffered are certainly grave in nature and have resulted in continuous inconvenience and suffering caused to the claimant. We therefore deem it fit to award by way of a global figure an amount of Rs. 25 0 all to the injured claimant in the present case on the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. To say the least it is the most conservative figure which can be currently awarded under this head. We must at once state that the award of a mere amount of Rs. 3 0 the Tribunal under this head is really no assessment of damages at all and is grossly inadequate. We therefore raise that award to Rs. 25 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) THAT takes us to the insurance companys liability. Now is the time for us to consider the question regarding insurance companys liability to answer the claim of the respective injured-claimants. We therefore raise that award to Rs. 25 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) THAT takes us to the insurance companys liability. Now is the time for us to consider the question regarding insurance companys liability to answer the claim of the respective injured-claimants. As already stated above on issue No 4a the Tribunal has taken the view that the liability of the insurance company will be an unlimited liability and the insurance company has not challenged the said finding which has resulted in the adverse awards against it in both these cases by filing any cross-appeal or cross-objections. Still however we have thought it fit to permit Mr. Chhatrapati to address us on this question as we are enhancing the award of compensation payable to both the claimants in these appeals. The insurance policies taken out by respondent No. 4 insurer of the truck-trailer in question are at exs. 96 and 97 on the record of this case. Both these policies show that respondent No. 4-insurance company has insured the owner of the truck and trailer viz. Palej Gram Panchayat respondent No. 2 herein to the extent of Rs. 50 0 for third party liabilities in case of vehicular accident which may be caused to each of the vehicles viz. the tractor and trailer. Ex. 96 is the insurance policy issued by respondent No. 4 insurance company for tractor No. GJN 7749 while ex. 97 is the insurance policy insuring trailer No. C. H. 993 which has also involved in the vehicular accident along with the tractor. It is not in dispute that both the policies were in force at the time of the accident. Both these policies incorporate similar terms and conditions of the policy. Section II of the insurance policies pertains to liability to third parties and para 1 of the same reads thus :"subject to the limits of liability the Corporation will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (I) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (II)DAMAGE to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (II)DAMAGE to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. The limits of liability as mentioned in the policies show that the limits of the amount of the Corporations liability under sec. 11-1 (i) in respect of any one accident is such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939 while the limit of the amount of the Corporations liability under sec. 11-1 (ii) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event is Rs. 50 0 Similar are the terms and conditions incorporated in the policy ex. 97 which covered the trailer. It is therefore clear that by each of the policies the insurance company had insured the owner of the tractor and trailer to the extent of the claim for injuries to third parties as was necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Chhatrapati the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents including the insurance company contended that as per the provision of sec. 95 (1) and 95 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act liability of the insurance company under each of the aforesaid two policies so far as injuries caused to third parties are concerned would be limited to Rs. 50 0 qua each accident caused by the insured vehicle as the liability under both the policies was to the extent of liability required to he covered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act meaning thereby that bold the policies were the Act policies. ( 7 ) MR. Chhatrapatis submission on behalf of the insurance company can be summarised as under. (I) The insurer is liable under the policy and also under secs. 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 to indemnify the insured upto the limit of Rs. 50 0 in respect of any one accident and that therefore the liability of the insurer was restricted to Rs. 50 0 in all in respect of awards made in the concerned claim petitions. (II) Even assuming that in respect of each injured/deceased person there was an accidental injury caused which fastened upon the insurer the liability to satisfy the award in respect of each of such injured/deceased person the extent of liability to satisfy award in each of such cases could not in any event exceed Rs. (II) Even assuming that in respect of each injured/deceased person there was an accidental injury caused which fastened upon the insurer the liability to satisfy the award in respect of each of such injured/deceased person the extent of liability to satisfy award in each of such cases could not in any event exceed Rs. 50 0 ( 8 ) SO far as the first contention based on the words any one accident is concerned it has been stated merely to be rejected so far as this court is concerned. In Liliben wd/o Ajitsingh alias Jilubha Mulubha v. Lilaji Mafatji and Co. First appeal No. 696 of 1971 and companion matter decided on 30/09/1976 by a Division bench consisting of J. B. Mehta and M. C. Trivedi JJ. the question was whether the insurer was liable to satisfy the awards in favour of two different claimants each one of which was within the limit of Rs. 20 0 but which jointly exceeded Rs. 20 0 It was there held that overall limit of Rs. 20 0 was prescribed under the section as it then stood in respect of death or bodily injuries to employees/passengers. So far as third party risk was concerned however no limit was prescribed and sec. 95 (2) in terms provided that the policy shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident. Therefore the insurer would be liable to the extent of Rs. 20 0 qua each claimant when the accident takes place by the use of the vehicle which is insured even if there are several accidents in the sense that several persons are injured because on a true construction of the term any one accident so far as third party risk is concerned in case of every injured person there would be an accidental injury. This decision in our opinion completely clinches the issue. In respect of each of the two claims which have arisen out of a single accident in the present case. the insurer of the tractor trailer would be liable because the claim was in respect of third parties and in respect of each one of these cases there was an accidental injury caused by the vehicle insured. ( 9 ) SO far as second contention viz. that there is an over all limit of Rs. the insurer of the tractor trailer would be liable because the claim was in respect of third parties and in respect of each one of these cases there was an accidental injury caused by the vehicle insured. ( 9 ) SO far as second contention viz. that there is an over all limit of Rs. 50 0 qua each claimant is concerned we may mention here one submission of Mr. Chhatrapati. Mr. Chhatrapatis contention is that even though respondent no. 4 insurance company had insured the tractor as well as the trailer by separate two policies exs. 96 and 97 wherein for accidental risk pertaining to each of the two insured vehicles liability to third parties as per provisions of sec. 95 (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act would be confined to in all Rs. 50 0 though for each insured vehicle there was a separate policy. Mr. Chhatrapati submitted that the accident can be said to have been caused by driving of tractor and the trailer which was separately insured by ex. 97 was merely attached to the tractor and hence no liability would arise for the insurance company under the policy ex. 97. In other words according to him policy ex. 97 would be completely otiose and inoperative and would foist no liability on the insurance company. It is difficult to accept the aforesaid highly technical submission of Mr. Chhatrapati. The fact remains that on charge of premium the insurance company has separately insured the owner of the tractor as well as trailer by two separate policies exs. 96 and 97 and under each of the policies the insurance company has made itself liable so far as third party liabilities are concerned to make good the Act liability arising out of any accident wherein the insured tractor and trailer were involved. In the present case in the accident in question insured tractor as well as trailer were both involved and the accidental injuries caused by the use of both of them in a public place to third party claimants are required to be compensated for and for these damages the insurer is called upon to satisfy the awards passed in favour of the concerned injured claimants. It cannot be said that even though trailer was attached to the tractor and only tractor was being driven at the relevant time by the driver the accident can be said to have been caused only by the tractor and not by the trailer which was accompanying it when both the tractor as well as the trai-ler jointly dashed against the oncoming Ambassador car which was occupied by the insured claimants at the relevant time. Thus the accidental injuries to the third parties were caused by both the injured vehicles. The insurance company therefore cannot urge with any emphasis that the accidental injuries were caused to the third parties only by the tractor and not by the trailer which also was admittedly insured against third party risk and which also contributed its mite in causing the accidental injuries to third party claimants. Both the insured vehicles jointly contributed their strength in causing of the accidental injuries to the injured claimants and hence the insurance company which has separately injured both the vehicles by two separate policies will have to make good the Act liabilities arising out of the injuries caused to the injured third party claimants on account of the accident caused by both these insured vehicles. It is interesting to note that Mr. Chhatrapati for the insurance company submitted in this behalf that the Ambassador car which was occupied by the injured claimants at the relevant time dashed with the trailer which was insured under policy ex. 97. But so far as insure d tractor insured under policy ex. 96 was concerned it did not dash with the car. That makes no difference to the resulting liability of the insurance company out of the accident caused by both the vehicles. The trailer could not have moved by itself as it was attached to the tractor which was being driven by the driver of the tractor-trailer. Thus it was the tractor which put the trailer in motion and it was as a result of the negligent driving of the tractor by its driver that the accompanying trailer got dashed with the Ambassador car. Consequently it cannot be said that only trailer was involved and not the tractor in the present accident. Thus it was the tractor which put the trailer in motion and it was as a result of the negligent driving of the tractor by its driver that the accompanying trailer got dashed with the Ambassador car. Consequently it cannot be said that only trailer was involved and not the tractor in the present accident. In fact but for the tractor to which the trailer was attached the trailer would not have been at the place where it was at the time of the accident. It is therefore obvious that the accident in question was caused by the combined operation of both the tractor and the trailer which were separately insured by the insurance company under two different policies exs. 96 and 97. Mr. Chhatrapati then raised a futile argument that in any case the trailer was not a motor vehicle as covered by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. A mere look at the definition of sec. 2 (28) shows that motor vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. The aforesaid definition in terms includes a trailer to which power of propulsion may be transmitted from an external source like a tractor to which it is attached. It is therefore obvious that both the tractor and the trailer were motor vehicles as covered by the definition of the term of motor vehicle under sec. 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and both of them jointly caused the accidental injuries to third parties viz. the injured claimants. [the rest of the judgment is not material for the reports ]. Appeal allowed. .