Judgement K. K. SINGH, J.:- This appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura, dated 23-12-1976, awarding a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the appellant as compensation for the injuries received by him. 2. Suresh Chandra Saxena appellant aged about 40 years, was walking on the patri of the road in the city of Mathura near the State Bank of India an 6-12-1976, a military vehicle belonging to 205 Provost Unit, Mathura, of which the Union of India was the owner knocked him down from behind and dragged him as a result of which he received serious injuries. His both sides femur bones were fractured, left collar (clavicle) bone was fractured. Nasal bone and ribs of the left side was also fractured. In addition to that he received number of multiple bruises on his face, forehead, both hands, knees and his back. Immediately after the accident he was rushed to the hospital where he remained confined for 38 days and a number of doctors attended to him. He was operated upon and a rod was planted in his femur bones. Even after his discharge from the hospital he was confined to bed for a period of 3 months. The appellant filed claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for the injuries. The Union of India and the Officer Commanding of the Unit both filed joint written statement and contested the proceedings. In their written statement they admitted that the accident had occurred with the military vehicle. They pleaded that there was defect in the vehicle, as its foot-brake was not working, the Unit fitter repaired the vehicle and he had taken the same on the road for testing the brakes. While the vehicle was moving on the road the driver found another vehicle on its left side and applied brake but the vehicle could not stop and it knocked down the appellant, Before knocking down the appellant, the driver of the vehicle had been hooting its horn but the appellant did not move away instead he kept on looking towards the vehicle as such he was also guilty of contributory negligence. It was further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant was imaginary and excessive. 3. It was further pleaded that the amount of compensation claimed by the appellant was imaginary and excessive. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on appraisal of evidence held that the accident occurred on account of rush and negligent driving of the vehicle having defective brakes, the driver should not have taken the vehicle on the road where there was traffic. The driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent and as a result of which injuries were caused to the appellant, the Union of India was responsible for the tortuous act of its servant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the appellant with interest at the rate of 3% Per annum. Suresh Chandra Saxena has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal committed error in awarding a negligible amount to the appellant as compensation. He urged that having regard to the injuries of the appellant he is entitled to a sum of Rupees 1,50,000/- as compensation. He further submitted the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was also inadequate and unrealistic. Thus, the appellants sole grievance is about the inadequacy of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 5. In his claim petition the appellant had claimed damages in the following manner:- 1. General damages for disability claimed above : Rs. 50,000/-. 2. General damages for pains : Rs. 10,000/-. 3. Damages for five fractures: Rs. 30,000/-. 4. Damages of the clothes involved in the accident : Rs. 1,100/-. Rs. 40,000/-. 6. Shortening of life : Rs. 50,000/-. 7. Complex due to deformity : Rs. 10,000/-. 8. Cost of having to pay other for what he would do for himself : 5. Cost of attendance by all including brother : Rs. 20,000/-. 9. Deprivation of pleasures of life : Rs. 10,000/-. 10. Loss of work expenses in taxi etc. : Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- as general damages, for disability, pain, mental, shock, agony and for the injuries caused to the appellant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- for meeting the cost of attendant who looked after the appellant during the Period he remained confined to bed. The Tribunal held that on account of serious injuries. 10,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- as general damages, for disability, pain, mental, shock, agony and for the injuries caused to the appellant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- for meeting the cost of attendant who looked after the appellant during the Period he remained confined to bed. The Tribunal held that on account of serious injuries. the nerves of the appellant had become weak and his chewing power had diminished which adversely affected his span of life for which the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The fracture of the nasal bone caused deformity and for that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The appellant had claimed damages on the ground that he had become permanently disabled as he could not walk properly and he has been limping while walking. The Tribunal rejected this contention on the ground that there was no expert opinion of a doctor that the limping was of a permanent nature. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- to the appellant for his disability to drive a cycle or scooter and to cost of conveyance in his future life. The appellant was further awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- for the loss of his clothes in the accident. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/-. 6. Principles for awarding compensation for the injuries received in the motor accident are necessary to be considered. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages, the amount ofdamages varies according to gravity of the injury. Deprivation by injuries may bring with it three consequences,loss of earnings or earning capacity, expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself and loss of diminution in full pleasures of living While considering deprivation the court should have regard to the gravity and degree of the deprivation that is to say if one or more limb has been lost, the duration of the deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation. In awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation should be substantial in nature and it should not be merely token damages. In awarding damages in personal injury cases, the compensation should be substantial in nature and it should not be merely token damages. Damages which are to be awarded for personal injuries are those so far as the money can compensate the loss suffered by the injured person for wrongful act and for all natural and direct consequence of the wrongful act. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivations but the Court has to make an attempt to award damages so far as the money can compensate the loss. In H. West and Sons Ltd. v. Shephard, ((1963) 2 All ER 625), Lord Morris in His Memorable speech pointed out this aspect in the following words : "Money may be awarded so that something tangible way be procured to replace of like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But the money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All the Judges and Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparative injuries should be compensated by comparable awards." In Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563), Court of appeal while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury laid down three basic principles : "First assessability. In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or the brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity. There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases: otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability. Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to Court, a thing very much to the public good." 7. Thirdly, predictability. Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to Court, a thing very much to the public good." 7. In assessing damages the Court should make an effort to take into account all the relevant changes in the claimants circumstances which may have been caused by the injuries. Generally damages which are awarded in the form of compensation pecuniary also known as special damages, and non-pecuniary, which are classified as general damages. Pecuniary damages are normally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money. Non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculation. Pecuniary damages generally include four sub-heads, (i) expenses incurred by the claimant in respect of injury which may include medical expenses, special diet, cost of nursing or attendant; (ii) loss of earning or profit up to the date of trial, (iii) loss of earning capacity which may include incapability to earn in further years and also incapability in the labour market, loss of earning on account of termination of service or discontinuance of any trade, business or profession, and (iv) other material loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the injured or claimant of the rest of his life. Non-pecuniary loss (general damages) include a number of elements. Generally these include four sub-heads (i) Damages for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, already, suffered by the claimant or likely to suffer in future, (ii) Damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters e.g. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run, sit or less of marriage prospects, sexual pleasure, or loss of other amenities in life, e.g. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (sic) and (iv) Damages for the inconvenience, hardship, discomfiture, disappointment, frustration and mental stress which may be suffered by the claimant. While describing the various sub-heads we have tried to include various matters which should be considered by the Tribunal in assessing compensation. While describing the various sub-heads we have tried to include various matters which should be considered by the Tribunal in assessing compensation. It would be proper to consider the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages having regard to the various sub-heads on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. The different heads and the sub-heads as indicated above are not exhaustive in nature. There may be special or additional circumstances depending on the facts of a case and it is always open to the Court to take those Special circumstances into consideration in assessing the compensation. But generally the various sub-heads as noted earlier would provide guidance for assessing the compensation. It may not be necessary to allocate specific sums to different heads and sub-heads, instead it would be proper to arrive at a global figure after assessing various factors as indicated under the various sub-heads. It would, however, be desirable for the Tribunal to assess damages in respect of each item separately to which the claimant may be entitled under the various sub-heads as in that event it would be easier for the appellate court to consider the matter in appeal. 8. In the background of these principles we would now consider the appellants claim for damages. The claimant has claimed damages for the pecuniary loss suffered by him under item Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 10, as quoted earlier. Under item No. 4 the appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,100 as damages for the loss of his clothes in the accident. The Tribunal has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 500 on that account. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any error in the order of the Tribunal. Item No. 5 of the appellants claim is for a sum of Rs. 40,000 in respect of cost of his brother coming from Holland to India to look after him during the period he was confined to bed. It appears that Dr. Subhas Chandra Saxena, appellants brother is settled in Holland. He came to India to see the appellant when he was confined to bed on account of injuries. The appellant has claimed Rs. 40,000 as cost of the ticket from Holland to India and back and also for the loss of salary of his brother for the period during which he remained in India. This claim is too remote. He came to India to see the appellant when he was confined to bed on account of injuries. The appellant has claimed Rs. 40,000 as cost of the ticket from Holland to India and back and also for the loss of salary of his brother for the period during which he remained in India. This claim is too remote. No damages can be awarded in respect of a loss which is not reasonably connected with the injuries. There is no evidence that the attendance of Dr. Subhash Chandra Saxena, the appellants brother, was necessary. It appears that Dr. Subash Chandra Saxena, who is settled in Holland, came to India at a time when the appellant had received injuries and he remained in the country for sometime at his volition for which the appellant is not entitled to any damages. 9. Under item No. 8 the appellant has claimed a sum of RS. 20,000/- to meet the costs of attendance, paid by him to others and which he would be required to pay in future. Under this item, two kinds of claims were raised by the appellant, one for having paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to Sri A.K. Sinha who attended to the appellant for a period of seven months, and the other as cots of paying conveyance charges m future as on account of the injuries the appellant win not be able to ride bicycle. or drive scooter or car In this statement before the Tribunal the appellant stated that he had paid a sum of Rs. 3500/- to Sri A.K. Sinha for the services rendered by him to the appellant and in support of his statement he produced receipt. Ext.8, issued by Sri A.K. Sinha which evidenced the fact that the appellant had paid Rupees 3500/- to Sri Sinha. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as costs of the attendant. We do not agree with the Tribunal. The appellants evidence in this respect remains uncontroverted. There is no reason to discard the receipt Ex.8. Having regard to the injuries caused to the appellant it is reasonable to accept his contention that he required an attendant for a period of seven months. The claim made by the appellant in this respect was reasonable and justified and it should have been accepted in its entirety. There is no reason to discard the receipt Ex.8. Having regard to the injuries caused to the appellant it is reasonable to accept his contention that he required an attendant for a period of seven months. The claim made by the appellant in this respect was reasonable and justified and it should have been accepted in its entirety. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3500/- as claimed by him for meeting the cost of attendant. 10. The next item under this head relates to extra expenditure which the appellant is required to pay for his transport in future life. In his deposition before the Tribunal the appellant stated that on account of injuries he could not drive a cycle, scooter, motor cycle or a car and as such he would require a transport-rickshaw or a taxi for taking him from one place to the other. The appellant has incurred a disability which will put him to expenditure in future years for meeting the cost of transport. The appellant in our opinion is entitled to damages on this ground also. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- which in our opinion, is not sufficient. The appellant was aged about 40 years, at the time of accident and he would be required to pay conveyance charges for a period of 30 years more as the life expectancy in the country is 70 years. By any reasonable standard, the appellants cost of transport charges for future life would not be less than Rs. 10,000/-. We are, therefore, of the opinion that instead of Rs. 4000/- the appellant is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for meeting the costs of transport. 11. The appellant further claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of work and expenses in taxi. Admittedly, the appellant was in service in the Western Railway. His services were terminated on the ground of his having participated in the strike. He had flied a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court against his removal which was allowed in May, 1976. When the accident took place, the appellant had not joined his duty and he was not deprived of his salary for the period during which he was confined to bed. In the circumstances there was no pecuniary loss of work. He had flied a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court against his removal which was allowed in May, 1976. When the accident took place, the appellant had not joined his duty and he was not deprived of his salary for the period during which he was confined to bed. In the circumstances there was no pecuniary loss of work. The appellant further failed to adduce evidence to prove the expenses which may have been incurred in engaging taxi. The appellants claim of Rs. 10,000/- in this respect cannot be accepted. 12. The appellant has claimed general damages for the injuries and for the disability caused to him and for the pain and shock suffered by him on account of the injuries and also for deformity of his nose and for shortening of his life and for deprivation of pleasures of life. While considering the general damages it is necessary to consider the injuries received by the appellant which have been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Admittedly, the appellant had received serious injuries. His both femur bones were fractured. He was operated and a shaft was put to join the bones. His left collar (Clavicle) bone was fractured.His ribs of left side were also fractured. There was serious injury on the nasal bone and even after operation it has not been set right, instead a deformity has taken place, as a result of which the appellants face has changed. The appellant has undergone great mental and physical pain. He was confined in the hospital for 38 days and after his discharge from the hospital he was confined to bed for another period of three months. The Tribunal has on appraisal evidence recorded a finding that the appellants power of chewing was reduced by 25 per cent and his sight was weakened. He could not see cinema or television he could not walk and a deformity had occurred in his nose. While assessing general damages these facts have to be considered. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as general damages and thereafter it assessed damages in respect of separate items also. As discussed earlier general damages represent the total sum to which a claimant is entitled under the various sub-heads, under the general heading of non-pecuniary loss. While assessing general damages these facts have to be considered. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as general damages and thereafter it assessed damages in respect of separate items also. As discussed earlier general damages represent the total sum to which a claimant is entitled under the various sub-heads, under the general heading of non-pecuniary loss. The Tribunal committed error in assessing general damages first and then awarding damages in repeat of separate items which fall within the ambit of general damages. 13. We would now assess general damages in respect of each item of claim. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered great pain and shock by the injuries. His femur bones were broken he was operated and iron rod was implanted to connect the bones. He was operated and suffered great pain. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the pain suffering and shock suffered by the appellant and the pain which he is likely to suffer in future on account of serious injuries, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000. As regards the deformity in the appellants nose is concerned, there is no dispute that the appellant has incurred deformity although it is of a minor nature. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000 only for the nasal deformity. We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 3,000 should be awarded to the appellant in this respect. The injuries caused to the appellant have shortened his expectation of life. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the nerves of the appellant have become weak and his chewing strength has also decreased after the accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1.000 for shortening of span of life but we are of the opinion that having regard to the chewing disability of 25% of the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards shortening of his life. Since the appellant cannot run, walk or sit properly or play with children on account of serious injuries in femur bones, he is deprived of the amenities of life and on that account he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000. In all we assess the general damages at Rs. 23,000. 14. The appellant is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000. In all we assess the general damages at Rs. 23,000. 14. The appellant is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,000 as special damages and a sum of Rs. 23,000 as general damages. In all the appellant is entitled to Rs. 37,000 as compensation. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant then urged that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding interest at the rate of 3% only. We find merit in the contention. The accident in question took place in December, 1976. Having regard to the inflation and fall in the value of money and also to the prevailing rate of interest, we are of the opinion that the rate of interest allowed by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate. In our opinion the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of making the claim petition to the date of payment. 16. In the result, we partly allow the appeal with costs and hold that the appellant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 37,000 as compensation together with 6 per cent interest from the respondents from the date of making the claim petition to the date of payment. Appeal partly allowed.