D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are directed against the award passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri in Misc. Cases Nos. 183 and 184 of 1981. Both the Misc. Cases were filed by the appellant Sruti Shekhar Singh Samanta for compensation on account of the accident which took place on 2-2-1979. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this judgment. ( 2 ) THE accident giving rise to the proceedings for compensation took place on 2-2-1979 at 4. 30 p. m. when there was a head-on collision between the Jeep bearing registration No. ORD 1540 in which the appellant, his father late Mayadhar Singh Samanta and some others were travelling and the road train comprised of two buses bearing registration No. ORG 2392 and ORG 2118 belonging to the Orissa Road Transport Company. The place of the accident was near Santha Tulsidas Tank on the National Highway between Cuttack and Bhubaneswar when the jeep was going from Cuttack towards Bhubaneswar and the road train was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the accident the appellant and his father were seriously injured, the appellant survived but his father succumbed to the injuries. Regarding the accident it is the case of the appellant that the jeep was kept on the left side of the road to enable the driver to change rear right wheel as the tire of that wheel was punctured and the appellant and his father were standing near the vehicle when the road train came at great speed, dashed against the vehicle and injured them. According to the appellant, the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the road train by its driver. It was his further case that due to the accident he sustained serious head injuries, fracture of the right leg and the left side hip bone and some other injuries; he was kept as an indoor patient in the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital for about three months. Since then he has been a paralytic on the right side, is unable to sit properly and his mental condition is not yet normal. Since then he has been a paralytic on the right side, is unable to sit properly and his mental condition is not yet normal. Due to the accident the appellant who was then a student of Class XI has been compelled to discontinue his studies and he is not able to do any serious mental work because of his inability to concentrate on anything. It is also the case of the appellant that his father who was aged 48 years at the time of the accident was maintaining him and on account of his death he has been deprived of his help and assistance for life. On these averments the appellant filed Misc. Case No. 183 of 1981 claiming compensation of Rs 93,000 /- for injuries sustained by ' him and Misc. Case No. 184 of 1981 claiming compensation of Rs. 43,000/- for loss due to death of his father. ( 3 ) THE respondent, the sole opposite party in the cases refuted the claims in his written statement. Regarding the accident, the case of the respondent was that while the road train was proceeding at normal speed from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack and was on the left side of the road the jeep coming from the opposite direction swerved to the right and dashed against it. According to the respondent the driver of the jeep was not able to control the vehicle and that was the cause for his vehicles dashing against the road train. Regarding the quantum of compensation the respondent generally denied the claims and put the claimant to strict proof of his case. ( 4 ) THE appellant examined five witnesses including himself. The Conductor of the road train was the sole witness for the respondent. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal on assessment of the materials on record held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the road train by its driver. In this connection the Tribunal accepting the M. V. I' report observed that the accident took place due to puncture of the right rear wheel of the jeep for which the driver could not control the said vehicle on the road which had become slippery due to drizzling, but the driver of the road train did not exercise necessary care and caution to avoid the accident. Regarding the quantum, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation due to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him including physical pain, medical expenses and loss of income at Rs 6,000 /- and assessed compensation due to him on account of the death of his father at Rs. 24,000 / -. He further directed that out of the total compensation of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- shall be deposited in favour of the appellant in a nationalised bank for a period of ten years during which he shall not be entitled to hypothecate it for any loan or otherwise. The said award is under challenge in these appeals. ( 6 ) THE thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. It is his submission that in the facts and circumstances of the case the quantum of compensation is grossly low and should be enhanced. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent though initially tried to support the award, after the case was analysed candidly agreed that the amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant should be enhanced. ( 7 ) THE point that therefore arises for decision is what will be the fair and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the appellant in the two cases. Since the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent acts of the driver of the road train has not been challenged before me, there is no necessary to consider that aspect of the case. ( 8 ) P. W. 1, the appellant has stated in his deposition that as a result of the accident his father died at the spot and he sustained fracture on his right leg, fracture of the joint of his left leg and also injuries on his head. After the accident he lost his sense, He remained at the Cuttack S. C. B. Medical College Hospital for five months. He is unable to walk and sit properly and he is unable to read since his brain has been affected. He has also stated that at the time of the accident his father was aged 48 years. He was then the Chairman of Sukinda Panchayat Samiti; he was doing business in cloth and was a contractor. He was having an income of Rs. 500/- to Rs. He has also stated that at the time of the accident his father was aged 48 years. He was then the Chairman of Sukinda Panchayat Samiti; he was doing business in cloth and was a contractor. He was having an income of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- per month from his business. In cross-examination the witness stated that the jeep was of his brother in law (sister' husband) who was an Engineer in Rangali Dam Project. The appellant and his father had accompanied his (appellant') brother-in-law who was coming to Bhubaneswar. It is in his evidence that his brother-in-law had sustained slight injury but his cousin brother had sustained severe injuries due to the accident. In cross-examination the witness candidly stated that he could not say what was the contribution of his father to members of the family and he (witness) had not kept any account showing expenses incurred by him for treatment. P. W. 2 was the driver of the jeep and P. W. 3 was an independent witness. Their evidence relates to the manner in which the accident took place. Since that aspect of the case is not in question in the present proceedings it is not necessary to discuss their evidence. P. W. 4 was a clerk attached to the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital who produced the bed head ticket of the appellant. P. W. 8 Dr. Brahmananda Acharya, the Asst. Professor in the Neuro Surgery Department of the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack who examined the appellant on 2-2-79 for head injury stated that when he examined the patient at 8 p. m. on 2-2-79 he was unconscious, his right side of the body was paralysed and there was dislocation of right hip joint. He was admitted on 2-2-1979 and was discharged on 1-3-1979. The doctor stated that the injury on his head was serious in nature. On 14-3-84 when he deposed before the tribunal the witness found the right side leg of the appellant was still weak and he was limping. He was unable to sit properly and was unable to move his right leg freely. The mental condition of the appellant, according to the doctor, was sub-normal. In cross-examination he stated that paralysis on the right leg was due to head injury and it was mentioned in the bed head ticket (Ext. 1 ). He was unable to sit properly and was unable to move his right leg freely. The mental condition of the appellant, according to the doctor, was sub-normal. In cross-examination he stated that paralysis on the right leg was due to head injury and it was mentioned in the bed head ticket (Ext. 1 ). The witness further stated that he found that there was recovery from the hip above; had there been no paralysis, correction of displacement of right hip joint might have resulted in be complete recovery and had he not been a paralytic patient the recovery would have been easier. The doctor further stated that the injured had undergone a major operation. The deposition of D. W. 1, the conductor of the road train relates entirely to the accident and the manner in which it happened. Therefore it is not relevant for the present purpose. ( 9 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal regarding assessment of compensation, it will be proper to notice a few decisions in which the principles to be borne in mind in this connection have been spelt out. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushila Pandey v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1983 Allahabad 69 observed that a review of the English and Indian authorities shows that the conspectus of opinion has been that the bodily injury cases where the injured survives and is disabled, compensation awarded is higher than in cases of death because compensation is to be given to a living victim who is rendered disabled and is not able to lead normal life or to carry on his avocation or enjoy amenities of life. In cases where the injured incurs any disability on account of which the claimant cannot walk or ride a bicycle or attend to his personal needs or if he has to be constantly under medical care, he is entitled to compensation in respect of each of those items in addition to his economic loss. The authorities further show that in recent years the courts have awarded substantial amounts as general damages. The authorities further show that in recent years the courts have awarded substantial amounts as general damages. In the said decision the Court, discussing the award of compensation under the headings special damages and general damages observed that damages which are awarded in the form of compensation to a claimant are of two kinds, pecuniary which are also known as special damages, and non-pecuniary, which are classified as general damages. Pecuniary damages are generally 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 arithmatical calculation. Pecuniary damages generally include four sub-heads, (i) expenses incurred by the he claimant in respect of injury which may include medical expenses, special diet, cost of nursing or attendant, (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) loss of earning capacity which may include incapability to earn in future 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 for the rest of 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 sufferred 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 loss of marriage prospects, sexual intercourse and loss of other amenities in life; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, e. g. , on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; and (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfiture, dis-appointment, frustration and mental stress in life. The heads and sub-heads as mentioned above are not exhaustive in nature. There might be special circumstances depending on the facts of a case and it would always be open to the Tribunal to take those special circumstances into consideration in determining the compensation but generally the various subheads should provide guidance for determining the compensation. The heads and sub-heads as mentioned above are not exhaustive in nature. There might be special circumstances depending on the facts of a case and it would always be open to the Tribunal to take those special circumstances into consideration in determining the compensation but generally the various subheads should provide guidance for determining the compensation. It is desirable that the Tribunal while considering damages should Assess loss 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 assess the damages in appeal. However, it is not always necessary to allocate specific sums to different heads and sub-heads and the Tribunal for reasons to be discussed may arrive at lump sum amount. In that case the claimant, a girl of 11 years, was paralysed as a result of injuries in the accident. The Court held that having regard to the facts and circumstances the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- awarded by the Tribunal was too low and that she was entitled to Rs. 68,000/-, Rs. 40,000 /- as general damages and Rs. 28,000 /- as special damages. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Miss. Rattanjit Kaur v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1981 Punj and Har 159 considering the question of determination of the quantum of compensation observed that it is always impossible to have an exact estimate or assessment of the damages suffered by the persons injured in accident yet a reasonable view of the case in relation to all the circumstances of the case has to be taken to order to compesate the person injured for the loss which he has or appears to have suffered in life. In that case unmarried girl aged 20 years was seriously injured in an accident; she had to undergo pains and sufferings as a result of three fractures and five operations. Permanent disability was caused to her and she was disfigured. The Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,010 / -. The Court held that the amount of compensational awarded was grossly inadequate and was not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore the compensation payable to the victim was enhanced to Rs. 75,360 / -. Permanent disability was caused to her and she was disfigured. The Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,010 / -. The Court held that the amount of compensational awarded was grossly inadequate and was not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore the compensation payable to the victim was enhanced to Rs. 75,360 / -. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Shekhar reported in AIR 1988 Karnataka 105 observed that it is trite law that in granting compensation for personal injuries the victim has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and other special damages. The Tribunal is required to spread the compensation award able over these distinct heads which are now recognised in the field of Torts as inevitable parameters affording the basis on which and the extent to which an accident victim is liable to be compensated in an action for personal injuries. The Court further observed that the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in generous scales. The measure of damages in all these cases should be such as to enable even a tort feasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure. In that case the claimant, a young man of 24 years who was riding a motor cycle had suffered a number of fractures involving major bones of both arms and both legs for mending of which he was virtually tied down to his bed for nearly four months and the painful fall out from the accident continued to afflict the victim, had been awarded Rs. 6000/- by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the award was totally unjustified and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000. 6000/- by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the award was totally unjustified and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000. /- ( 10 ) COMING to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear from the statements made by P. W. 1 (appellant) and the medical expert (P. W. 5) that due to the accident the appellant suffered serious injuries on different parts of his body including the head; had to undergo a serious operation, was confined as an indoor patient in the Hospital for a month and even five years after the accident had not recovered completely. When the doctor examined him on the date of his deposition before the Tribunal he found that the appellant was unable to walk and sit properly and his mental condition was subnormal. Further, it appears from the statement of the appellant that be is not able to concentrate on any matter because of the head injury and he is unable to lead a normal life after the accident. It is common know- ledge that serious head injury causes paralysis and other complications both physical and mental which continue for the life of the injured and recovery, if any, takes a very long time. No doubt that the appellant has not been able on produce any material specifically the amount spent by him for his treatment, special diet or other expenses incurred during the period of treatment or thereafter. There was therefore justification for the Tribunal not to award any amount towards special damages under the different heads noticed earlier. But no acceptable ground has been stated in the judgment (award) or appears from the materials on record to justify award of the paltry amount of Rs. 6000/- towards general damages to the injured in the case. The compensation amount is grossly and shockingly low. But no acceptable ground has been stated in the judgment (award) or appears from the materials on record to justify award of the paltry amount of Rs. 6000/- towards general damages to the injured in the case. The compensation amount is grossly and shockingly low. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the principles discussed earlier, particularly the facts that the injured, a young man of 20 years, has been rendered a paralytic, has to bear the pain and the suffering in leading a normal life for the rest of his life, is deprived of the normal pleasures of life and has suffered serious loss in his earning capacity due to the sub-normal mental state at which the doctor found him to be, in my view, it will be a fair and reasonable to assess the compensation at Rs. 40,000 / -. ( 11 ) COMING to the appeal relating to the award of compensation on account of the death of the father of the appellant, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,000 /- on the basis that Rs. 200 /- was the monthly contribution of the deceased to the appellant which would have continued for ten years but for the accident. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in estimating the monthly contribution of the deceased at Rs. 200 /- and also in taking the period of such contribution to be only ten years. As noticed earlier, the appellant was aged about 20 years when the accident occurred and he was a student. As such it is expected that at that time he was totally dependent on his father for his sustenance. The deceased was a contractor and at the time of the accident he was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. He was aged 48 years. Regarding the income of the deceased there is no evidence excepting the statement of the appellant wherein he has stated that his father' income from his business was Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/ -. Accepting the statement to be correct and considering the status of the deceased and amount reasonably required for sustenance of a school going boy of 20 years, in my view, the sum of Rs. 200/- per month is on the lower side. A sum of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/ -. Accepting the statement to be correct and considering the status of the deceased and amount reasonably required for sustenance of a school going boy of 20 years, in my view, the sum of Rs. 200/- per month is on the lower side. A sum of Rs. 250/- per month will be, in my opinion, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the cafe. Regarding the period of ten years which learned Tribunal has taken as reasonable period of the claimant' dependance on his father, I find little scope to interfere with the finding. It is no dount true that the Tribunal took 58 years to be the age of the deceased during which he could earn and sustain the appellant, The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Lanka Sarmma v. Rajendra Singh, reported in AIR 1984 Andh Pra 32 in support of his submission that the reasonable life span for purpose of motor accident compensation should be taken as 75 years. But that may not be very relavant here inasmuch as it is not expected that ahoy of 20 years will be dependant on his father till the death of the latter, Normally it is expected that a boy after completing his education will take up some service, trade or avocation and earn his livelihood and will cease to be dependant on his parents. As noticed earlier, the appellant was in the final year class (Class XI) in the school when his father died. Therefore if the learned Tribunal has taken 10 years to be the period for which he would have received financial assistance from the father, I do not think that he has taken an unreasonable or erroneousb view. Therefore, calculating at the rate of Rs. 250 /- per month for ten years the amount works out at Rs. 30,000 / -. ( 12 ) ON the analysis and the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the appeals are allowed in part, the awards passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent that the appellant will be entitled to Rs. 40,000 /- for the injuries sustained by him and Rs. 30,000 /on account of the loss of income due to the death of his father. Both parties will bear their respective costs of these appeals. Appeals partly allowed.