C. M. Nayar ( 1 ) THE present first appeal arises from the award dated 20thoctober, 1987 of Shri B. L. Garg, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. Theappellant, Arvind Kumar filed the petition for compensation under Section 110-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 9,90,000. 00 as compensation for injuriessustained by him in the accident. The appellant, it is alleged was driving twowheeler scooter No. DEK 8787 with one Shri Jagdish Chand Bansal on the pillionseat on 21/11/1984 at about 12. 00 noon from near Police Picket Saraswativihar, Shalimar Bagh on the left side of the Outer Ring road with slow speed whenbus No. DEP 6535 driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by respondent No. 1in due course of his employment with respondent No. 2 came from the oppositedirection on the wrong side of the road and hit the two wheeler scooter with thefront side of the bus. The offending bus stopped after covering some distanceresulting into grievous injuries to the appellant and fatal injuries to Shri Jagdishchand Bansal. The bus came on the road meant for traffic going from Saraswativihar side towards Inter State Bus Terminus and it came suddenly and hit thescooter with great force resulting into grievous injuries to the appellant. Theappellant as a consequence of the accident has become disabled and was in comafor a long period. The relevant facts are elaborately stated in the Claim Petition asfollows:- (a) The appellant suffered extreme mental pain and agony as a result ofthe injuries received by him in the accident. He has been disabled permanently; his leg has become short by one inch as compared to theother leg. The appellant has lost his health and he will not be able toregain his health which he was enjoying just before the accident. Hehas become crippled and his mental faculties have been adverselyaffected due to this accident caused by respondent No. l He cannotswallow anything except liquid and has to be taken care of constantlyday and night. The appellant has shifted to his brother s residence,shris. C. Garg as the cost of attending him was high as compared to thecost incurred at his residence. 6-7 persons were attending on him andeven he needs assistance of minimum two persons day and night. Therefore the appellant will need permanent care throughout his lifeand he shall need special conveyance which may cost aroundrs. l,000. C. Garg as the cost of attending him was high as compared to thecost incurred at his residence. 6-7 persons were attending on him andeven he needs assistance of minimum two persons day and night. Therefore the appellant will need permanent care throughout his lifeand he shall need special conveyance which may cost aroundrs. l,000. 00 per month just to enable him to move about a bit. Theappellant cannot speak as his tongue has been damaged due to braininjury; (b) As an impact of the accident the life of the appellant has been ruined,he will have no chances of settlement in life and marriage and in anycase he will require permanent care; the earning capacity has beenreduced to zero and he has lost enjoyment of life; (e) The family of the appellant is well connected, the elder brother is auniversity topper and is working as lecturer in Delhi Universitycollege. The second brother is also well placed and the appellant therefore, would have great success in life considering the status of thefamily and was expected to earn a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 per month at theage of 24 to 25 years. ( 2 ) THE above are the broad averments made by the appellant in his claimpetition. It is further alleged that he was 20 years of age at the time of accident andhe had passed 10+2 examination in the year 1983. He had been doing his businessof property broker in the name and style of Elite Property Dealers and was earningabout Rs. 2,000. 00 per month. The resultant effect of the accident is that theappellant is confined to bed and is permanently disabled. Therefore, even thepetition before the Tribunal was filed by his brother Shri S. C. Garg. The amount ofcompensation as claimed under different heads are REFERRED TO to in paragraph 21 ofthe petition and the same may be reproduced as below: (i) Expenses done on the treatmentof the petitioner/appellant tillthis date Rs. 40,000. 00 (ii) Future treatment expenses Rs. 50,000. 00 (iii) Pain and sufferings undergoneby the petitioners/appellant Rs. 50,000. 00 (iv) Disability suffered by thepetitioner/appellant Rs. 50,000. 00 (v) Loss of earning includingfuture loss of earning Rs. 4,00,000. 00 (vi) Loss of enjoyment of lifesuffered by the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000. 00appellant (vii) Conveyance expenses Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (viii) General damages Rs. 2,00,000. 00total Rs. 9,90,000. 50,000. 00 (iii) Pain and sufferings undergoneby the petitioners/appellant Rs. 50,000. 00 (iv) Disability suffered by thepetitioner/appellant Rs. 50,000. 00 (v) Loss of earning includingfuture loss of earning Rs. 4,00,000. 00 (vi) Loss of enjoyment of lifesuffered by the petitioner Rs. 1,00,000. 00appellant (vii) Conveyance expenses Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (viii) General damages Rs. 2,00,000. 00total Rs. 9,90,000. 00 ( 3 ) THE written statement was filed by respondents 1 and 3. The factum ofaccident as well as the fact that respondent No. 1 was the driver and respondent 3was the owner was admitted. However, it was pleaded that respondent No. 2 wasnot the owner and as such he was not liable to pay any compensation. The accidentwas alleged to have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter onthe part of the appellant. The bus was insured with respondent No. 4 and as suchrespondents 1 and 3 were not liable to pay any copensation. Respondent No 4has filed separate written statement and admitted the factum of accident butdenied that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the partof respondent No. 1 The following issues were framed on the pleadings of theparties:1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as alleged in the petition onaccount of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DEP-6535 on thepart of respondent No. 1?2. To what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled and fromwhom?3. Relief. Issue No. 1the Tribunal REFERRED TO to the evidence on record which included the photo-graphs which were taken after the accident as well as the site plan. The learnedjudge held that it was established that the appellant sustained injuries as a resultof rash and negligent driving of bus No. `dep-6535 as it caused the accident bycoming on the wrong side of the road on the part of respondent No. 1. This issuewas decided accordingly. issue No. 2the evidence with regard to this issue was REFERRED TO to and examined. Public Witness 24,shri S. C. Garg who is the brother of the appellant and Public Witness 25 Mrs. Vinod Garg whois the wife of the brother of the appellant appeared as witnesses and deposed thatthe appellant sustained serious head injuries, injury on left eye, multiple fractureson both legs and two teeth were broken. He was in complete coma for about 5months. Vinod Garg whois the wife of the brother of the appellant appeared as witnesses and deposed thatthe appellant sustained serious head injuries, injury on left eye, multiple fractureson both legs and two teeth were broken. He was in complete coma for about 5months. After the accident he was admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital and then hewas shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at about 4. 30 p. m. on the same day in theemergency ward under the care of Dr. H. N. Aggarwal, Neurosurgeon. Catscanning was performed and he remained in intensive care unit for about threeweeks. On 7. 12. 84 cat-scanning was done again and he was shifted to generalhospital as there was no hope for his survival. He was discharged from the hospitalthereafter and was kept at home. He was attended by 5-6 persons during the wholeyear of 1985 and was kept on special diet for about 1- years which cost Rs. 60 tors. 70. 00 per day. The appellant was not in a position to walk properly and sufferedfrom loss of memory and he was unable to do any job. He had been undergoingphysiotherapy and, it is contended that he had already incurred Rs. 40,000. 00onmedical expenses etc. till April, 1985. He has now been held to be permanentlydisabled and his leg has been shortened by one inch. The statement of Public Witness 24, Shris. C. Garg was corroborated by the statement of Dr. N. V. Kamath, Public Witness 27 fromsanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. The appellant was having weakness of all fourlimbs due to head and spine injuries. He was having difficulty in speaking, walkingand performing other daily activities. Similarly Public Witness 20, Dr. S. C. Sharma, Public Witness 21 Dr. J. P. Manocha from Ganga Ram Hospital were examined. They have reiterated thatthe brain of the petitioner was not functioning and he was in a deep unconsciousstage. The Tribunal assessed the evidence on record and held that the appellantremained hospitalised for a period of about 3 weeks and his left leg was shortenedby one inch. He also remained in coma for about 5 months. Due to head andmultiple bone injuries he has lost speech. The witnesses were not cross-examinedand no rebuttal evidence was led on the side of the respondents. The Tribunalassessed the evidence and found no reason to disbelieve the same. The following amounts were awarded by the Tribunal under the respectiveheads;1. He also remained in coma for about 5 months. Due to head andmultiple bone injuries he has lost speech. The witnesses were not cross-examinedand no rebuttal evidence was led on the side of the respondents. The Tribunalassessed the evidence and found no reason to disbelieve the same. The following amounts were awarded by the Tribunal under the respectiveheads;1. General damages for painand suffering Rs. 20,000. 002. Treatment/medicineexpenses Rs. 12,000. 00 (against a claim of Rs. 40,000for expenses already incurred+ Rs. 50,000. 00 for future treatment)3. Special conveyance expenses4. Special diet5. Loss of amenities and future enjoyment of life6. Loss of incomers. 10,000. 00rs. 10,000. 00rs. 20,000. 00rs. 96,000. 00total Rs. 1,68,000. 00 ( 4 ) THE Tribunal, therefore, on the above basis awarded the compensation ofrs. l,68,000. 00 as against a claim of Rs. 9,90,000. 00. The learned Counsel for theappellant has contended that the appellant is no doubt alive but his status in life isworse than dead. He has lost his speech, he cannot walk properly, he has sufferedfrom brain damage and is not able to eat his food. The appellant is to remain in thisstate so long as he is alive and will need continuous assistance and support of hisfamily members as well as the persons who are employed to look after him at alltimes. The Tribunal assessed the evidence on record and held that the accident wascaused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus which came onthe wrong side of the road and hit the scooter of the appellant. The learned Counselfor the Insurance Company has not been able to refer to any evidence to thecontrary which will establish any negligence on the part of the appellant. Thefinding in this regard cannot be interfered which is affirmed. It may be relevant tomention that another person Mr. Jagdish Chand Bansal who was sitting on thepillion seat of the two wheeler driven by the appellant had died in the sameaccident. The claim petition was filed by his wife Mrs. Kirno Devi wherein it wasalso held that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent drivingof the bus by respondent No. 1. The compensation in that case was assessed at Rs. 2,88,000. 00 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition tillrealisation. Kirno Devi wherein it wasalso held that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent drivingof the bus by respondent No. 1. The compensation in that case was assessed at Rs. 2,88,000. 00 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition tillrealisation. The Counsel for the appellant states that no appeal has been filed inrespect of that award. ( 5 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether thecompensation awarded is just, fair and adequate or it requires to be enhanced in thefacts and circumstances of the case. There is no doubt that the evidence on recordindicates that the appellant was in coma for quite a long time and has sufferedpermanent disability. It is also established from the evidence that he is requiredconstant care and help and it is unlikely that he will be able to re-start his life as anormal healthy person. The appellant has, therefore, become permanently disabled. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Mr. R. D. Hattangadi v. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. JT 1995 (1) SC 304 has dealt with thepropositions that were raised on similar facts. The facts of the case would indicatethat the appellant was a practising Adoveate before the accident. He was also ajudge of the City Civil Court for some time until he resigned in 1964. The appellantused to appear in various Courts including the High Court and the Supreme Courtand because of the accident he became disabled and was unable to resume practice. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 26,25,992 together with interest @12% p. a. from the date of application till realisation. The High Court modified theaward of the Tribunal and reduced the compensation to Rs. 8,57,352. 00 as well asreduced the rate of interest from 12% p. a. to 6% p. a. The appeal was filed by theappellant/claimant in the Supreme Court which ultimately assessed the compensation under different heads. The basis for award of damages in such cases has tobe assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. The concept isexplained in the judgment in the following paragraphs which refer to the Englishconcept as well: ( 9 ) BROADLY speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to avictim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. The concept isexplained in the judgment in the following paragraphs which refer to the Englishconcept as well: ( 9 ) BROADLY speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to avictim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which thevictim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in termsof money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable ofbeing assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appredate twoconcepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii)other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they mayinclude; (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, alreadysuffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for theloss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i. e. on accountof injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for theloss of expectation of life, i. e. on account of injury the normal longevity of theperson concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. ( 10 ) IT cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who wasan active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of injuriessustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exactamount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant andfor having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation canrestore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by thecourts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation pay- ". able for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensatesuch injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible toequate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. ( 11 ) IN the case Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All E. R. 563 it was said: "although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his "lostyears", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortenedspan, that is, during his expected "years of survival". You can compensatehim for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment,nursing and attendance. You can compensatehim for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment,nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for beingrendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be renderedunconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to risefrom his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money isno good to him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best they can and givehim what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well nigh insoluble. Theyare being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for themost part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, andthey keep it in line with the changes in the value of money. " ( 12 ) IN its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to beviewed with objective standards. ( 13 ) THIS Court in the case of C. K. Subramonia Iyer and Ors. v. T Kunhikuttan Nair and Ors. , AIR 1970 SC 376 in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act hasobserved: "in assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matterwhich rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent isinevitable. " ( 14 ) IN Halsbury s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding nonpecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said :- "non-PECUNIARY loss: the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and sufferingand loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be thesum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the Courts in thelight of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventionalprinciples providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity ofdifferent injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particularinjury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected inthe actual amount of the award. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventionalprinciples providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity ofdifferent injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particularinjury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected inthe actual amount of the award. The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of theseawards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in thepattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to largevariations in individual cases"6. The position of law is settled and there is no dispute in the Indian Lawwhich is based on the assessment of damages under the English Law that headsunder which the Court should consider the assessment of damages may beformulated as follows: (a) Expenses already incurred for treatment. (b) Cost of caring for the rest of life (future expenses ). (e) Pain and sufferings including. Disability suffered. (d) Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life (e) Loss of earnings including probable future earnings. (f) Loss of expectation of life etc. 7. The Courts are faced always with almost impossible task of assessing a sumof money which the law can recognise as fair and reasonable compensation to ayoung man who had everything to live for, for the loss of virtually everythingwhich makes life worthliving. "it is a melancholy and unenjoyable task but thecourt must do best to discharge it" as has been recognised in the case of Cutts and Anr. v. Chumley and Anr, 1967 1 WLR 742. The facts of the present case presenta very pathetic reading. The appellant who is a young man of 20 years and wasdoing his business of property broker was suddenly put in an unfotunate situationof being looked after by others on account of this accident which caused disabilityof mind and body. The Tribunal has assessed the evidence on record and has clearlyheld that the appellant remained hospitalised for quite some time and his leg wasshortened by one inch. He also remained in coma for about 5 months. There isweakness in all the four limbs due to head and multiple bone injuries and he has lostthe power of speech. He was admitted in different hospitals and was kept onspecial diet for about one and a half years which cost Rs. 60 to 70/ per day. He also remained in coma for about 5 months. There isweakness in all the four limbs due to head and multiple bone injuries and he has lostthe power of speech. He was admitted in different hospitals and was kept onspecial diet for about one and a half years which cost Rs. 60 to 70/ per day. Theplea that the appellant had to be looked after with the help of an attendant who waspaid Rs. 50. 00 per day as he was not in a position to walk properly cannot be lostsight of. The physiotherapy which is one of the acknolwedged mode of treamentin such cases is required to be pursued for a long duration. There is also a findingthat the appellant has become permanent disabled and the medical evidence onrecord is a pointer to this direction. In this situation and on the basis of evidenceand facts available on record, the Tribunal should have awarded the amountswhich were claimed under the different heads in the following manner: (a) The appellant has claimed Rs. 40,000. 00 incurred on treatment till thedate of filing the petition before the Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 with regard to future treatment expenses that will include thecost of caring for the rest of life. The Tribunal has merely awarded Rs. 12,000. 00 on account of treatment andmedicines and Rs. 20,000. 00 asgeneral damages. There is evidence available on record that theappellant was admitted in different hospitals and was in coma for suchperiod. The medicines had to be administered and the special dietobviously has to be fed to a gravely ill person for a long period. Theappellant was not in a position to walk properly, he lost his memoryand was undergoing physiotherapy as well. The claim was reducedmerely on the ground that there was no medical expert s evidence tothe current and future treatment of the appellant. The facts speak foritself and it was not necessary for the Tribunal to be so mathematicalon these questions. It is not possible to obtain receipts for every smallhelp which was to be rendered to an invalid person. The appellant is,therefore, held entitled to the full claims i. e. Rs. 40,000. 00 and Rs. 50,000. 00 with regard to expenses already incurred for the treatment aswell as for the future expenses respectively. (b) The appellant has next claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000. The appellant is,therefore, held entitled to the full claims i. e. Rs. 40,000. 00 and Rs. 50,000. 00 with regard to expenses already incurred for the treatment aswell as for the future expenses respectively. (b) The appellant has next claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 for pain andsuffering undergone by him and a sum of Rs. I lakh for loss ofamenities and enjoyment of life. The compensation for pain andsuffering and loss of amenities of life has to be considered on the basisof- the facts and special circumstances of the case. The age of theclaimant, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect there of onhis future life have been recognised to be such circumstances whichwill have bearing on the ultimate award of compensation" under theseheads. The amount of compensation as pecuniary loss is not easy todetermine but the award must reflect that different circumstanceshave been taken into consideration. The appellant was a young manand he was a property broker and he had a reasonable expectation inlife to prosper whereas this unfortunate accident has rendered himpermanently disabled with brain damage and loss of memory. He isto be helped by the attendants to move about and cannot even feedhimself. It is also not denied that he is incapable of leading anindependent life as he has lost power of speech and there is weaknessin all the four limbs of his body. He has accordingly become permanently disabled. The facts of the present case are of comparable natureto the facts in the case of Mr. R. D. Hattangadi where the claim on thesecounts were allowed. It will meet the requirements of justice if theappellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 for pain and sufferingundergone by him and a further sum of Rs. I lakh for loss of amenitiesand enjoyment of life respectively. "these amounts will also cover relieffor disability suffered by the appellant. (e) The Tribunal has next allowed the claim for conveyance expenses aswell as for special diet to the extent of Rs. 10,000. 00 each. The appellanthas not placed any material evidence on record to reiterate that moreamount was liable to be awarded under these two heads. The amountsso awarded are accordingly affirmed. (d) The next head which is to be considered is the claim of the appellant forloss of earning including future loss of earning, a sum claimed in thisregard is a consolidated figure of Rs. The amountsso awarded are accordingly affirmed. (d) The next head which is to be considered is the claim of the appellant forloss of earning including future loss of earning, a sum claimed in thisregard is a consolidated figure of Rs. 4 lakhs. The Tribunal hasconsidered these jointly and on that basis has only awarded a sum ofrs. 96,000. 00 by assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 1,000. 00 permonth and using a multiplier of 8, the figure of Rs. 96,000. 00 has beenarrived at. The appellant was self-employed and was doing hisbusiness of property broker and it is stated that he was earning a sumof Rs. 2,000. 00 per month. The prospects were good and there isevidence on record with regard to the income of the appellant and thetribunal has not disbelieved the statement of such witnesses. Thefigure of Rs. 1,000. 00 has been arrived at after alleged allowance forexaggeration in _such matters when no corroborative documentaryevidence was available. The learned Judge has not considered loss ofcurrent earnings of the appellant as well as the likelihood of futureprospects in case the appellant was not rendered invalid as a result ofthis accident. The multiplier adopted is without any basis. Therefore,the compensation in the sum of Rs. 96,000. 00 for loss of earnings whichwill cover the future earnings as well is rather on the low side. In thefacts and circumstances of the case, it will be in the interest of justice ifthe award under this head is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 96,000/which will take into consideration the current earnings of the appellant as well as loss of future earnings. The award under this head ismodified accordingly. 8. In the ultimate analysis the appellant is held entitled to the amounts underdifferent heads which may be reproduced as follows:1. Expenses already incurred on thetreatment of the appellant tillthe date of filing the petition2. Future medical expenses3. Pain and suffering sufferedby the appellant. 4. Loss of enjoyment and amenitiesof life5. Conveyances expenses etc. 6. Loss of earnings includingfuture earnings (Rs. 96,000 x 2)Totalrs. 40,000. 00rs. 50,000. 00rs. 50,000. 00rs. l,00,000. 00rs. 20,000. 00future earnings (Rs. 96,000 x 2) Rs. 1,92,000. 00total Rs. 4,52,000. 009. The appellant is, therefore, held entitled to the total claim under differentheads as REFERRED TO to above in the sum of Rs. 4,52,000. 00. Conveyances expenses etc. 6. Loss of earnings includingfuture earnings (Rs. 96,000 x 2)Totalrs. 40,000. 00rs. 50,000. 00rs. 50,000. 00rs. l,00,000. 00rs. 20,000. 00future earnings (Rs. 96,000 x 2) Rs. 1,92,000. 00total Rs. 4,52,000. 009. The appellant is, therefore, held entitled to the total claim under differentheads as REFERRED TO to above in the sum of Rs. 4,52,000. 00. He shall further be entitledto interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. Theamount which has already been disbursed to the appellant shall be taken intoaccount in computation of the amount which is now held payable. The interestshall be paid over the amount which has become payable on the date of the awardand not on the amount which is to be paid for expenditure to be incurred in future. The appellant shall not be entitled to interest over such amount. This i ? on the basisof the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mr. R. D. Hattangadi V. M/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (supra ). The question now arises as to whether some ordercan be made to protect the interest of the appellant as he is permanently disabled. Taking an overall view of the facts of the present case it will be in the interest ofjustice and for the benefit of the appellant that 50% of the amount including interestwhich is now held payable to the appellant shall be invested in a fixed depositreceipt or in Unit Trust of India or any other Government securities for the periodof five years. The monthly or quarterly interest accruing therefrom may be used forthe welfare and treatment of the appellant. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs which are quantified atrs. 5000. 00.