R. J. SHAH, S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1, 43,000. 00 for injury. That award was not challenged by the Respondent but the Petitioner filed appeal for the further amount of Rs. 1,16,000. 00 on the head of the brain injury. The matter was remanded and after further evidence the Tribunal did not award anything on this head. He therefore filed appeal His Lordship after stating facts and discussing evidence further observed: ( 2 ) THE question that now arises is as to what could be awarded to the claimant on the count of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life considering that in addition to his aforesaid functional disability found by Dr. Nagpal he has also a permanent disablement flowing from his brain injury as stated hereinabove. In this connection no decision either of the Supreme Court or that of any other High Court of our country has been brought to our notice wherein a similar question had received attention. In the absence of the same we will need to look into whether similar cases have been dealt with by English Courts. A scrutiny in this connection has shown that such questions have been dealt with by English Courts as per the following tabular statement: table showing relevant English awards covering the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life in the cases of injured persons who suffer from epilepsy as well as some other permanent disablements sr. Year age of awarded details regarding remarks no. Of victim amount nature of injuries and assessment at the date suffered reference of accident all the cases from KEMP and KEMP The Quantum of Damages Vol. 2 Publication date Aug. 31 1979 1. 1966 Exact age not stated * 8,000 young man received head injury - after the injury headaches and two major blackouts - sedative drugs stopped the major blackouts and reduced the headaches - forgetful and also experiencing non-existent unpleasant smells - 50/50 chance of major epilepsy developing - Trial judges award not interfered with by the Court of Appeal. 2. 1966 Exact age not stated * 8,000 young man received head injury - after the injury headaches and two major blackouts - sedative drugs stopped the major blackouts and reduced the headaches - forgetful and also experiencing non-existent unpleasant smells - 50/50 chance of major epilepsy developing - Trial judges award not interfered with by the Court of Appeal. 2. 1968 44 * 4,000 male - Maintenance fitter - Fractured skull resulting in tendency to epilepsy - In hospital 3 weeks and off work about another month- 14 months later suffered major epileptic fit later followed by another fit -If went off drugs would run risk of further attacks. ELDERFIELD V. GRIT ABATERS LTD. 3-402 PAGE 3401 3. 1969 23 or 24 * 12,000 including agreed special damages of * 1,000 male fork-lift truck driver - head injuries to both knees - either 2 or 4 years after the accident he began ever since but with less frequency - permanent pain in both knees - limitation of movement especially the right knee - held fit to do light work. BOOTH V. OHALLORAN 3-311 PAGE 3311 4. 1969 21 * 6,000 unmarried woman - bank clerk sustained head injuries -6 days in hospital - Not long afterwards she suffered a major epileptic attack of the grand mal type which involved convulsions- followed by several lesser attacks- persistent headaches - fits regarded as felit mal and not grand mal - Court of Appeal held trial judges award was clearly within the bracket jones V. GRIFFITH 3-314 PAGE 3313 5. 1970 exact age not stated * 2,500 healthy young woman - hit her forehead on the dashboard of a car involved in a motor accident - Unconscious for a short time immediately afterwards - Developed head aches and dizziness - 5 months after the accident became subject to minor seizures - Conflicting medical evidence- epilepsy not established on the balance of probabilities possibility of further seizures - general damages awarded nokes V. DAVIES 3-316 PAGE 3314 6. 1972 31 * 5,250 and agreed special damages of *988 male - Carpenter - fractured skull with associated bilateral brain damage fractured jaw - developed post-traumatic epilepsy - no epileptic fits since about 7 months after accident - in early stages had two major fits - so long as continued with drugs was unlikely to have further fits - Per curiam: case called for substantial award but not on scale of those cases involving epilepsy which was not likely to be fully controllable in future. CRAWFORD V. BLOFELD 3-401 PAGE 3401 ( 3 ) THE aforesaid table shows that epilepsy is regarded as a serious type of infirmity. Even where medical evidence was conflicting and epilepsy had not been established on probabilities * 2 533 have been awarded considering the possibility of future seizures. As per the table the range of damages is from * 2 500 to * 11 0 dependent upon the gravity and the frequency of attacks and the circumstances of the case. Age is also a relevant and material consideration. The table further reveals that when accompanied by another permanent disablement damages are awarded on a higher scale. Petit mal and grand mal are types of epileptic attacks which by and large have general recognition. ( 4 ) ). As observed hereinabove great importance has been attached to this aspect of the matter and more than twice the conventional figure for the loss of a limb and nearly 4 times as much as the conventional figure for the loss of an eye has been awarded in such cases. A note of caution has also been struck that the ceiling figure could not be put above * 10 0 or * 11 0 and if one puts the of ceiling figure much above the said figure one gets into the realm of award for paraplegic cases which are clearly much more serious than the one under consideration. We feel that there is no good reason to depart from the aforesaid principles. Further. as observed in PRAVINCHANDRA JIVRAJ MEHTA and ORS. V. LALBHAI MELABHAI VASAVA AND OTHERS 23 (2) G. L. R. 582: 1982 GLH 940 ) by my brother Majmudar J. speaking for the Division Bench consisting of P. D. Desai and S. B. Majmudars JJ. We feel that there is no good reason to depart from the aforesaid principles. Further. as observed in PRAVINCHANDRA JIVRAJ MEHTA and ORS. V. LALBHAI MELABHAI VASAVA AND OTHERS 23 (2) G. L. R. 582: 1982 GLH 940 ) by my brother Majmudar J. speaking for the Division Bench consisting of P. D. Desai and S. B. Majmudars JJ. 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 effects 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 loss of memory etc. would work up to Rs. 1 9 800 taking the exchange rate of *1=rs. 18 which is the education around which the exchange rate usually fluctuates. Similar observations are to be found in the case of A. S. RAJARA @ RAJA VAMSHYAM V. JOITARAM RAWABHAI PATEL and ANR. (23 (2) GLR 29 ). My brother Majmudar J. speaking for the Division Bench consisting of P. D. Desai and S. B. Majmudar. JJ. observed in A. S. Rajaras case (supra): 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 then to estimate the totality of suffering pain and lost pleasures and comforts of life to arrive at a just compensation. It does not seem that a better principle could be propounded in this connection. Taking all the aforesaid into consideration and considering the nature and extent of the permanent disablement suffered by the claimant together with the fact as admitted by the claimant himself that the frequency of such epileptic attacks has lessened it would seem to us that the just compensation on the aforesaid count should be in the sum of Rs. 35 0 and not Rs. 25 0 as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant would therefore be entitled to an additional compensation in the sum of Rs. 10 0 on this count. .