BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed :] ( 2 ) WE have carefully considered the written submissions made before us as well as oral submissions on the issue of negligence. Driver of a motor vehicle is expected to act like a man of prudence and exercise due care and caution and make every effort to avoid the accident. Having gone through the entire evidence on record and in view of two rival contentions, we find it difficult to draw any clear line as to by whose sole negligence the accident occurred. Whether by a truck with excessive speed running on the middle of the road or by a car coming from the opposite side whose driver was not on sufficient look out to avoid such collision. ( 3 ) FORMERLY, it was the practice of the Court of appeal to have regard to the total award of damages and not to interfere with the assessment under individual heads of damages provided that the total award fell within the proper bracket (Kemp and kemp ). The concept and convention of awarding compensation to a person who has suffered damages or loss as a consequence of a wrong done to him, is an assurance to a person and his properties in the form of social security. This concept has been developed since the right of life and liberty of human being is recognised in the republican States as back as in 18th Century in the western countries. ( 4 ) SHOULD the standard of assessing compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss depend on the socio-economic status of an individual who met with an accident ? Is a person of business community, a tax payer, meets with an accident and sustains injuries, may be serious or trival, takes treatment in the best private hospital of his choice, occupy airconditioned room, gets operated in an air-conditioned theatre, take costly medicines and diet as prescribed by the Doctors, etc. , entitled to claim full reimbursement of said medical expenses spent by him for his treatment? likewise, he will fatch more compensation for the pain, shock, sufferings and loss of amenities. , entitled to claim full reimbursement of said medical expenses spent by him for his treatment? likewise, he will fatch more compensation for the pain, shock, sufferings and loss of amenities. On the other hand, a clerk or a person from labour comunity sustains injuries similar to the injuries sustained by a businessman, and gets himself admitted in a general ward of a Civil hospital and spends for medical expenses, will get less amount than the amount which businessman will be getting simply because he is capable to invest more money initially in medical treatment. Is it consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment to all citizens irrespective of caste, creed or colour under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India ? The right of life and liberty is a natural right. If it is curtailed by any eventuality of the act of accident, whether fatal or bodily injury, the dependents or an injured are entitled to the damages and it could be compensated in terms of money; but the moot question of what should be the just compensation in the country like India wherein large population is starving for food, dying for medicines and have no roof over their heads? Should the amount of compensation vary from individual to individual or should there be one standard for all irrespsctive of their socio-economic status? We talk much about socio-economic justice but do nothing. We are conscious that this question may not be relevant for deciding the present appeals before us but in our humble view, it should not escape from our attention the agony of a poor person whose fate is presumed to be shielded while awarding him compensation for the loss which he sustained out of accident. It shows that the injured claimant Shri Pramodbhai remained invalid for attending business only for a period of five months and, thereafter, from july, 1976 onwards, he has resumed his regular business as he took various trips as scheduled for business purposes and there is no evidence on the record showing that on return from abroad, he remained at home and did not attend the office. On the contrary, there is evidence on record Exh. 132 collectively [page 246] telegram dated 7-4-1976 sent to John Tailor and sons, Abu Dhabi under his signature. Letter page 247 of compilation is addressed to the same party on 7-4-1976 under his signature. On the contrary, there is evidence on record Exh. 132 collectively [page 246] telegram dated 7-4-1976 sent to John Tailor and sons, Abu Dhabi under his signature. Letter page 247 of compilation is addressed to the same party on 7-4-1976 under his signature. Similarly, letters dated 12-4-1976, 14-4-1976 and 30-4-1976 are also on record. This correspondence carried out by the injured claimant Shri Pramodbhai with regard to his business show that he was looking after his commission business even when he was confined to bed. He was doing business of commission agent in the name and style of M/s. Globetrotters and M/s. Industrial Insulation corporation wherein he was partner. Emphasising on this set of documentary evidence, Mr. Dalal submitted that Shri Pramodbhai had started to attend his business from first week of July, 1976 both physically as well as mentally. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above-referred case (Bharat Premjibhai v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, 1978 GLR 585 ,) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and hence the Tribunal has committed serious error in allowing claim of the claimant Shri Pramodbhai under the head of actual loss of income for a period of 34 months. The claimant is not entitled to the loss of income from the date of accident till the date of trial since, he recovered and was able to resume his regular business and, therefore, no actual loss of income has occurred. (Rest of the Judgment is not material for the Reports.) .