JUDGMENT : K.C. Agrawal, J.—These twelve connected appeals arise out of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar, dated 19-2-1977, deciding six claim petitions Nos. 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 1970. Out of these six claim petitions, six appeals Nos. 335, 338, 337, 339, 340 and 336 have been preferred by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, whereas the remaining six appeals, viz. Nos. 398, 403, 402, 401, 399 and 400 have been filed by the claimants. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are these. On 17th June, 1970, Krishna Kumar Chopra along with his family members was going from Ajmeri Gate Delhi to Mussoorie by a taxi, bearing No. USK 5180, when it met with an accident at about 3.30 P.M. on Delhl-Roorkee Road, near village Chhapar within the jurisdiction of police station Purkazi district Muzaffarnagar, with Roadways Bus No. USL 8757, belonging to the B.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The allegations were that the taxi was on its left side at a normal speed. When it had reached near village Chhapar, the Bus came from the opposite direction at a very high speed. The Bus was out of control of the driver. Seeing the bus, the taxi driver moved his vehicle to the further left and went to the Kachcha portion of the Patri, but the bus driver since had lost control over the bus on account of the speed went to the extreme right side and crashed into the taxi, as a result where of the taxi was completely smashed and all the occupants of the taxi were entangled in the wreckage. They would be extricated by the persons who came on the spot. As a result of the accident, Anil Chopra received very serious injuries. His face was mutilated and the flying pieces of windscreen glass pierced through his eyes, mouth and ears. He received other sever injuries also. He remained alive uptil 25th June, 1970, but, ultimately, her succumbed to his injuries. The other occupants of the taxi, K.M. Chopra, his wife Mrs. Usha chopra, Master Deepak Chopra, aged about 13 years, Master Nikku Chopra, aged about 2 years, and Karan Chopra, aged about 10 years received injuries. He received other sever injuries also. He remained alive uptil 25th June, 1970, but, ultimately, her succumbed to his injuries. The other occupants of the taxi, K.M. Chopra, his wife Mrs. Usha chopra, Master Deepak Chopra, aged about 13 years, Master Nikku Chopra, aged about 2 years, and Karan Chopra, aged about 10 years received injuries. The injuries received by them are mentioned below; Krishna Kumar Chopra :- (i) Comminuted fracture of the right femur (ii) Compound fracture of the left tibia and fibula (iii) Comminuted fracture of the right arm and of humerus (iv) Injury to the right brachial plexus Smt. Usha Chopra :- (i) fracture and dislocation of right ling joint (ii) fracture of pubis (iii) fracture of left calcaneus (iv) Open injury to forehead. Deepak Chopra : (i) Fracture of right humerus (ii) Open injury to the right upper lip (iii) The afflicted arm became septic and an operation had to be performed. Karan Chopra : Fracture of the skull (ii) His ear was extensively cut on account of the injury and bled profusely. It become septic and a major operation had to be performed due to which he has become disfigured, (iii) A long lacerated wound on the right side of the face (iv) He remained completely unconscious for about 2-1/2 months and suffered untold misery. Nikku Chopra : (i) Serious head injury for comminuted fracture of skull (ii) Brain contusion giving weakness of left hand. Most of the injuries were of temporary nature and caused temporary disability, but he had residual effect of brain injury. 3. The six claim petitions were contested by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on the ground that the accident resulted on account of rashness and negligence of the taxi driver and not that of the bus driver. The case of the Transport Corporation was that the taxi driver was driving the vehicle in a zigzag manner. He had no control on the taxi. As he had no control on the taxi, he rammed the taxi into the bus, which resulted in the unfortunate accident. The Corporation denied that the accident resulted due to the negligence of the driver driving the bus. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Roadways bus? 2. The Corporation denied that the accident resulted due to the negligence of the driver driving the bus. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Roadways bus? 2. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the taxi driver? 3. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the Petitioner entitled and from which of the opposite parties? 5. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were taken up together and were decided against the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The Tribunal disbelieved the case of the Corporation that the taxi driver was driving the vehicle in a zigzag manner, and that the accident resulted due to his negligence. The finding arrived at was that the bus driver was negligent and had no control on the bus. The bus rammed into the taxi despite the effort of the taxi driver to save the accident by the taxi to the extreme left. On these findings, the Tribunal awarded damages claimed by the claimants in sums mentioned below: 1 Anil Kumar Chopra Rs. 9,380-53 2 K.K. Chopra Rs. 19,370-00 3 Smt. Usha Rani Chopra Rs. 21,502-11 4 Master Deepak Chopra Rs. 4,026-15 5 Karan Chopra Rs. 22,740-96 6 Master Nikku Chopra Rs. 7,169-13 6. Being aggrieved by the award, as stated above, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has filed six appeals, whereas the six others have been filed by the claimants. 7. The first question that arises for decision is about the negligence. To prove negligence, the claimants produced K.K. Chopra (PW 3) and Smt. Usha Rani Chopra (PW 4). They were the two occupants of the taxi and had received severe injuries. They also produced Zahoor Ahmad (PW 7) and Mohammad Abbas (PW 8). These persons had their fields near the place of occurrence. According to Zahoor Ahmad, he had his fields adjoining the Grand Trunk Road. He had seen the taxi coming from Muzaffarnagar side and going to Dehra Dun. This witness deposed that taxi was on its left. The Roadways bus was coming at very high speed and it dashed the taxi because the driver of the bus had completely lost control on it. He had seen the taxi coming from Muzaffarnagar side and going to Dehra Dun. This witness deposed that taxi was on its left. The Roadways bus was coming at very high speed and it dashed the taxi because the driver of the bus had completely lost control on it. This witness has been supported by Mohammad Abbas (PW 8) who had a field near the Grand Trunk Road and had seen the taxi and the bus coming from opposite directions. He also stated that the bus was out of control of its driver. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal considered the evidence and believed the statement of the claimants as well as the two witnesses stated above. We have gone through the statements of these two witnesses and find nothing to disbelieve either the claimants or the witnesses produced by them. There is of course, some discrepancies in the statements of Zahoor Ahmad (PW 7) and Mohammad Abbas (PW 8) bat the discrepancy pointed out is minor and does not affect the veracity of correctness of their statements. It may be true that K.K. Chopra and Smt. Usha Rani Chopra were the claimants of the claim petitions, but that by itself is no ground to discard them. They were the occupants of the taxi. They had seen the entire thing themselves. Nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination to discredit them. 9. On the side of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation the witnesses produced were Bajrang Prasad (DW 1) and Banarsi Das (DW 2). Bajrang Prasad was the driver. Bajrang Prasad, who had been supported by Banarsi Das, stated that the taxi was coming in a zigzag manner. According to his statement, the driver of the bus moved the bus to his left side, but as the taxi driver had no control on the vehicle, he came to that side and dashed against the bus. These two witnesses are not reliable as there is contradiction not only in their statements but also about the factual position on the spot. Their assertion that the taxi was running in a zigzag manner has no substance. 10. The accident occurred in the month of June at 3.30 P.M. The driver of the bus could see the taxi from a distance and could save the accident had he not been negligent. Their assertion that the taxi was running in a zigzag manner has no substance. 10. The accident occurred in the month of June at 3.30 P.M. The driver of the bus could see the taxi from a distance and could save the accident had he not been negligent. No evidence has come on record to show as to why could brake be not applied to save the accident by him. In these circumstances, the finding of the Claims Tribunal appears to us to be correct. The evidence disclosed that the taxi was on its left. The bus driver could not control the speed as a result whereof the accident occurred. It is true that speed is not always the conclusive proof to prove negligence. Speed has to be considered along with other facts and circumstances for finding out negligence of the person against whom such a charge is made. In the instant case, the fact that the bus had been taken to the wrong side and the accident had taken place when the taxi was on the Kachcha Patri, shows that the accident had occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the bus driver. 11. Next comes the question of damages. For Anil Chopra, the damages awarded was Rs. 9,380-53. He died on 25th June, 1970. Nothing could be shown to us for enhancing the compensation in respect of the deceased Anil Chopra. The Tribunal had taken into account the amount which was spent on his medical treatment as also the general damages. Out of Rs. 10,000/- clamed as damages on medical treatment the bills and vouchers produced could prove only Rs. 1380-53 palse on this count. The claim for enhancement of damages under the head cannot, therefore, be increased. It is necessary as laid down in Dr. C.B. Singh v. Cantonment Board, Agra 1974 ACJ 11, that damages, whether special or general, must be proved. Since only a few of the bills and vouchers had been proved by the claimants, nothing more is allowable on this count. 12. So far as K.K. Chopra is concerned, we think that the expenditure incurred on medicines and medical treatment has been rightly fixed at Rs. 6370/-. But the general damages awarded to him is inadequate. Since only a few of the bills and vouchers had been proved by the claimants, nothing more is allowable on this count. 12. So far as K.K. Chopra is concerned, we think that the expenditure incurred on medicines and medical treatment has been rightly fixed at Rs. 6370/-. But the general damages awarded to him is inadequate. The damages which are to be awarded for a tort are those which "so far as money can compensate will give the injured party reparation for the wrongful act and for ail the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act ". Admiralty Comrs v. Susquehanna). The use of the words "So far as money can compensate " is important and point out the importance of equating money with human suffering or human deprivations. Money awarded can only make good a financial loss. It cannot renew a physical, frame that has been destroyed. Court of law can only attempt to give reasonable compensation and endeavour to severe uniformity in the general method of approach. As said in 1942 (1) AER 281, " There is no yardstick by which the court can measure the amount to be awarded for pain and suffering, but nonetheless a Court should do as best as it can by considering the evidence brought on record." 13. The injuries received by K.K. Chopra were of such a nature on account of which he could not give as much personal attention to his business as he was doing before He could not, due to the fracture of his right shoulder, lift even a bag by his right hand. The movement of the right arm was restricted. As a result of injuries, prospects of advancement in his trade had diminished. Taking all these things into consideration, to us it appears that the general damages awarded were Inadequate, and that instead of Rs. 19,370/- the Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 25,000/-. 14. The compensation awarded to Smt. Usha Rani Chopra is also inadequate. The compensation awarded to her was Rs. 21,502/-. No claim for higher amount of bill has been made out. In our view, on the evidence led in the case, she was entitled to more pecuniary compensation than what had been given to her. The damages awarded on account of bodily injuries received by her do not appear to us to be fair and reasonable. 21,502/-. No claim for higher amount of bill has been made out. In our view, on the evidence led in the case, she was entitled to more pecuniary compensation than what had been given to her. The damages awarded on account of bodily injuries received by her do not appear to us to be fair and reasonable. There is no fixed rule or exact standard by which damages can be measured-in personal injury cases. But, considering the in juries received by Smt. Usha Rani Chopra, which have been described by us above, we think that compensation awarded to her should have been Rs. 29,502/- instead of Rs. 21,502/-. 15. In other three claimants, viz. Master Deepak Chopra, Karan Chopra, and Master Nikku Chopra were minors. Recovery for the minor's loss of earning power or prospective loss of earnings will not be denied simply because he has no history of earnings. A boy whose time has been spent in school should not be dented recovery for loss of earning power merely because he is unable to give specific evidence of the amount of his earnings before the accident as compared with what that would be thereafter. In such cases, however, there should be some evidence on the record of the probable effect about future earning capacity with the injuries occasioned and no recovery can be had in the absence of evidence to establish such element of damages with reasonable certainty. In the instant case, so far as these three minors are concerned, no evidence has been brought on record about the expected loss of future earnings. On the evidence led, we think that the damages awarded do not err on the side of leniency. Had the claimants led evidence on the point which would have established the same, we would have had no hesitation in awarding it to them. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to do so. So far as these minors are concerned, we are unable to find that the Tribunal has acted on wrong principle of law or has misapprehended the facts or has for these reasons or other reasons made an erroneous estimate of the damages. As a court of appeal, we could revise the estimate of damages if we would have found either misreading of evidence or wrong application of principles of law. As a court of appeal, we could revise the estimate of damages if we would have found either misreading of evidence or wrong application of principles of law. The principle on which the court of appeal revises the estimate of damages, whether too high or too low, is not because the court of appeal might have given rather more or rather less but only (a) if the Judge has omitted some relevant consideration or has admitted some irrelevant consideration, or (b) if the amount is so excessive or insufficient as to be plainly unreasonable. That does not appear to be so in the case of these three minors. 16. For these reasons, we dismiss all the six appeals filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, and allow the appeals preferred by Krishna Kumar Chopra and Smt. Usha Rani Chopra partly. The amount of compensation awarded to these two Appellants is modified to this extent that K.K. Chopra is given Rs. 25000/- instead of Rs. 19,370/-, while Smt. Usha Rani Chopra is awarded Rs. 29,502/- instead of Rs. 21,502/-. The remaining four appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.