D. H. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) ON 10-9-1977 Ramanbhai Fulabhai (a minor the appellant) had gone to the field of Ramchandra Fulabhai Pandya (Respondent No. 2) for labour work for agricultural purpose. At about 5-30 P. M. he was returning in a tractor driven by Babubhai alias Abdulbhai Daudbhai Vohra (respondent No. 1) and belonging to respondent No. 2 to unload the contents of the trailer at the house of respondent No. 2. It was the case of the appellant that the tractor was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No. 1 there occurred a big jolt on account of which the appellant Ramanbhai who was sitting at the rear of the trailer fell down was crushed under the wheels of the trailer and sustained serious injuries resulting into permanent disability. The appellant filed a claim application through his guardian and next friend Fulabhai Ganesh Bhoi bearing No. 53 of 1978 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kaira at Nadiad and claimed a sum of Rs. 30 0 which vide Exh. 36 was later raised to Rs. 90 0 In the same claim application appellant impleaded the driver of the tractor as respondent No. 1 the owner of the tractor as respondent No. 2 and the insurer of the tractor namely the National Insurance Company as respondent No. 3. 3 The respondents resisted the claim made by the appellant and contended that the accident on account of which the appellant suffered injuries was not caused by the negligence of respondent No. 1 but that the appellant himself was responsible for its occurrence. It was also con. tended that the claim was grossly exaggerated and that the minor did not suffer any permanent disability. On behalf of the Insurance Company respondent No. 3 it was contended that it was not liable to compensate for the occurrence of the accident as the appellant was travelling by a vehicle which was primarily meant for carrying goods and not passengers. It was also contended that the appellant was injured by the negligence of a co-employee. It was also contended that it will not be liable as the risk was not specifically covered under the policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It was also contended that the appellant was injured by the negligence of a co-employee. It was also contended that it will not be liable as the risk was not specifically covered under the policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [his Lordship observed that there were not cross-appeals against the finding of negligence on the part of the driver. His Lordship further observed. ] ( 2 ) WE shall confine ourselves only to the question of the adequancy of compensation payable to the appellant Ramanbhai Fulabhai Bhoi. ( 3 ) RAMANBHAI (aged about 17 at the time of his deposition) deposed before the Tribunal and stated that he was crushed under the wheel of the trailer after he fell down from the trailer. He was injured on his pelvic region. He was treated for two months at Nadiad and thereafter intermittently at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad for a total period of eight months. Even by that time the appellant was neither cured nor did he stop the treatment. He stated that even on the day on which he was giving his deposition his treatment continued under Dr. Jeswani. The appellant has stated that he is unable to micturate and is required to keep a pouch and a catheter. He has also stated that he continued to suffer pain even till the date of his deposition. He stated further that he was required to get the catheter changed every 15 days and that each time it cost him Rs. 50. 00. He has stated that his father had already spent about Rs. 3 0 for his treatment. Till the date of deposition the appellant was not married. It is very relevant to observe that on behalf of the respondents not a single question was asked to the appellant challenge his veracity so far as the deposition in connection with the injuries and the consequent sufferings by the appellant were concerned. We have therefore no reason to discard the appellants statement that although the treatment was protracted for over eight months he was not cured of the injuries due to which he suffered so much. ( 4 ) IN this connection we shall now read the evidence of Dr. Pradipkumar Jinabhai Kansara Registrar in Urology Civil Hospital Ahmedabad. We have therefore no reason to discard the appellants statement that although the treatment was protracted for over eight months he was not cured of the injuries due to which he suffered so much. ( 4 ) IN this connection we shall now read the evidence of Dr. Pradipkumar Jinabhai Kansara Registrar in Urology Civil Hospital Ahmedabad. He has deposed that appellant Ramanbhai was admitted in his hospital on 5-4-1978. and was operated upon by Dr. K. N. Shah the Uro Surgeon on 29-4-1978. Dr. Kansara has deposed that the claimant suffered from stricture of urethra. The appellant was discharged from Civil Hospital Ahmedabad on 12-5-1978. Five days before Dr. Kansara gave evidence before the Tribunal the appellant was again examined by him and Dr. Kansara found that the appellant was not able to micturate and supra public catheter had to be fixed. He has also stated in his evidence that supra pubic catheter had become a permanent fixture. In Dr. Kansaras opinion it was possible that the condition of the appellant may lead to complications like septicimia and stone formation. He has categorically deposed that the disability suffered by the appellant was irreversible. He has further opined that the appellant would not be able to enjoy the act of coitus because there would be erection but no ejaculation as the seminal fluid will move in a retrograde direction. Thus Dr. Kansara has deposed about the serious ailments suffered by the appellant on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is again pertinent to note that despite this unmistakable opinion of Dr. Kansara about the condition of the appellant as well as its prognosis the respondents have made no attempt whatever to challenge this medical opinion. The only question which is asked to him in this regard was whether the restricted portion of urethra could be replaced by skin-grafting to which Dr. Kansara replied that the success of such operations would be problematic as such operations are not done in Gujarat. Despite the fact that Dr. Kansara stated that the appellant would permanently suffer a disability for sexual intercourse and in micturating the opinion was not challenged in his cross-examination. We emphasise this aspect of the cross-examination because it was argued before us that we should place no reliance on the testimony of Dr. Kansara and that in fact the claimant should have examined Dr. Kansara stated that the appellant would permanently suffer a disability for sexual intercourse and in micturating the opinion was not challenged in his cross-examination. We emphasise this aspect of the cross-examination because it was argued before us that we should place no reliance on the testimony of Dr. Kansara and that in fact the claimant should have examined Dr. K. N. Shah who performed the operation upon him on 20-4-1978. It is true that if Dr. K. N. Shah was examined before us he might have thrown more light about the appellants condition but his absence on the record does not necessarily imply that we cannot put any faith in Dr. Kansaras evidence. Dr. Kansara is no stranger to the appellant since he had not only admitted the appellant in the hospital but had also examined him. If the respondents felt that Dr. Kansara could not be relied upon for one reason or another they should have assailed his say in his cross-examination and pointed out as to what were the reasons why Dr. Kansara was not a good witness for the appellant. No mala fides are attributed to Dr. Kansara nor has any shadow been cast on the question of ability on the part of Dr. Kansara to depose about the physical condition of the appellant. ( 5 ) HOWEVER we are not resting satisfied with the opinion of Dr. Kansara but we also take into account the other medical opinion of Dr. D. L. Patel (Exh. 45) and Dr. Jeswani (Exh. 533 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 6 ) THE appellants have further examined Dr. K. D. Jeswani vide Exh. 53 Dr. K. D. Jeswani has deposed that from 27-6-1978 appellant Ramanbhai was under his treatment and that appellant was admitted in his hospital as an indoor patient It is stated in the certificate issued by Dr. Jeswani (Exh. 54) that the claimant had sustained complicated fracture of the pelvis. The urethra had also ruptured as a result of the fracture of the pelvis. The appellant was treated and operated for various procedures at other places and the urethroplasty was also performed but it was not successful. It is further stated in the certificate that the appellant had a supra-pubic catheter kept in through which the urine was passing out. The urethra had also ruptured as a result of the fracture of the pelvis. The appellant was treated and operated for various procedures at other places and the urethroplasty was also performed but it was not successful. It is further stated in the certificate that the appellant had a supra-pubic catheter kept in through which the urine was passing out. It is further stated in the certificate that the natural passage of urine was totally closed. Dr. Jeswani opined in his certificate that from the then condition of the patient It seemed that he would have to pull on with the supra-pubic catheter through-out his life. This would lead to many complications like recurrent urinary infections stone formation and septicimia. It is in terms stated in the certificate that the appellant would not be in a position to enjoy sex as the coitus would not be possible. Dr. Jeswani has also certified that the appellant also would not be able to do any laborious work in presence of the suprapubic catheter. ( 7 ) DR. Jeswani is an M. S. and is practising as a Consultant Surgeon. In his deposition Dr. Jeswani stated that contents of the certificate are correct. In his examination-in-chief it is stated by him that the appellant would not be able to enjoy coitus as there would be erection but no ejaculation. He has also slated that the appellant will constantly feel discomfort and pain. He has also deposed that the use of the catheter would be a permanent feature. The eatheter would be required to be replaced periodically which would cost the appellant Rs. 50. 00 every time. Dr. Jeswani further stated that the boy would be useless for bard labour and that in his opinion external injuries may not be found but both the pubic rami are fractured. ( 8 ) WE find that the result of the medical evidence of the three doctors is quite consistent with one another. So far as Dr. Jeswani is concerned there is no cross-examination whatever and so far as Dr. Kansara is concerned nothing substantial has been brought out in his cross-examination which would adversely affect the appellant in his claim for damages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So far as Dr. Jeswani is concerned there is no cross-examination whatever and so far as Dr. Kansara is concerned nothing substantial has been brought out in his cross-examination which would adversely affect the appellant in his claim for damages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 9 ) THE Tribunal has taken into account the physical condition of the appellant and has awarded him Rs. 20 0 for the pain shock suffering and the discomfort which the appellant suffered and which he will have endure in future. The Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs. 25 0 for the permanent disability that the claimant has suffered including the social set-back and the loss of marital prospects. In other words the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 45 0 as damages for the non-pecuniary loss. The Tribunal has also awarded a further sum of Rs. 22 500 as compensation for the future pecuniary loss. So far as the medical expenses are concerned the Tribunal awarded Rs. 6 0 Thus the Tribunal totally awarded to the appellant totally Rs. 73 500 by way of compensation. ( 10 ) MR. Soparkar the learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted before us that the Tribunal has not awarded adequately to the appellant for the non-pecuniary loss. He submitted that the claim for non-pecuniary loss is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of P. D. Desai and S. B. Majmudar JJ. in First Appeal No. 1641 of 1979 which was decided under identical circumstances. (A. S. Rajare v. Joitaram Revabhai XXIII (2) G. L. R. 29) ( 11 ) WHILE adjudicating the claim for damages for pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Majmudar J. considered the relevant earlier judgments in order to award to the appellant-claimant adequate compensation. A detailed reference was also made to the English cases from 1952 onwards and it appears to us that no useful purpose will be served by our treading the same ground again. A detailed reference was also made to the English cases from 1952 onwards and it appears to us that no useful purpose will be served by our treading the same ground again. Majmudar J. summed up the analysis of the India and the English Cases in the following words:"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 case under the head of non-pecuniary loss by almost five times between 1952 and 1957". 20 Proceeding further Majmudar J. observed as under:"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". ( 12 ) THERE is no doubt that the injuries suffered by the claimant before us are identical and his case cannot in any way be distinguished from the case considered by the Division Bench. As a matter of fact the appellant before us is hardly 15 years of age and he would have to suffer his misfortune for a long period of time. Mr. As a matter of fact the appellant before us is hardly 15 years of age and he would have to suffer his misfortune for a long period of time. Mr. Soparkar was right in submitting before us that there was no reason why the claimant should get a lesser amount from the one that was awarded to the claimant by the Division Bench. We accept his submission and accordingly we award to the claimant Rs. 75 0 as damages under the head of pain shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life instead of Rs. 45 0 awarded by the Tribunal. Appeal allowed. .