B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in AAO No. 595 of 1993 dated 14-9-1999 is assailed in this LPA. ( 2 ) THIS matter arises under Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimant is the appellant before this Court. The case of the appellant is that while he was travelling along with his wife in an autorickshaw bearing No. AP31 T1673 on 23-12-1990 at about 1. 30 p. m. , to go to a lodge near the Waltair Railway Station and when they reached near Old Railway Hospital, the lorry bearing No. AAV 9727 came and hit the autorickshaw due to which his wife died and the appellant received injuries to his left hand and fracture to his right turner (leg) and he was treated in King George Hospital from 23-12-1990 to 23-3-1991. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Hence he filed MVOP claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 under various heads i. e. , Rs. 3,000. 00 towards loss of earnings, Rs. 3,000. 00 towards transport and extra nourishment, Rs. 12,000. 00 towards medicines and medical treatment charges under the head special damages, Rs. 30,000. 00for pain and suffering and mental agony and Rs. 75,000. 00 as compensation for continued or permanent disability besides Rs. 75,000. 00for the loss of earning power and loss of expectancy. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal having held that there is no permanent disability awarded Rs. 11,845. 00towards loss of earning, Rs. 942. 00 towards medical expenses including X-ray photos, Rs. 15,000. 00 for pain and suffering and Rs. 2,212. 00 for transportation. In all an amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the appellant herein preferred AAO No. 595 of 1993. The learned Judge while accepting the compensation given on other grounds awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 towards transportation and nourishment. Hence, this appeal. 2,212. 00 for transportation. In all an amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 was awarded as compensation. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the appellant herein preferred AAO No. 595 of 1993. The learned Judge while accepting the compensation given on other grounds awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 towards transportation and nourishment. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) WE are in agreement with the compensation awarded towards loss of earning, medical expenses, transportation and nourishment as enhanced by the learned single Judge, but we feel that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and not awarding any compensation for continuing and permanent disability, the Court below went wrong and needs interference by this Court, ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the appellant had undergone treatment nearly for 3 months in King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam due to fracture to his leg and the mental agony cannot be valued in terms of rupees and paise. Hence, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Court below for pain and suffering i. e. , Rs. 15,000. 00 is too low and we are inclined to increase the same to Rs. 25,000. 00. As far as continuing and permanent disability is concerned, the doctor who treated the appellant at King George Hospital was examined as PW3 and as per the disability certificate Ex. A26 given by him the permanent disability is estimated at 20% as the right leg is shortened by half-an-inch, but unfortunately the trial Court on an erroneous view observed "i am not able to agree with the version of PW3 about loss of functional capacity is partial and permanent disability at 20% because PW1 who is the injured is working as a Typist. That being so he could sit and do the typing job. So the mere fact that there is a shortening of the leg of half-an-inch does not impair or that there is no partial permanent disability". With great respect to the learned District Judge, we have no hesitation to hold that the view taken by him is not only erroneous but also capricious. The continuing and permanent disability is to the person but not with reference to the work he is doing. With great respect to the learned District Judge, we have no hesitation to hold that the view taken by him is not only erroneous but also capricious. The continuing and permanent disability is to the person but not with reference to the work he is doing. He may attend to the work as a typist but the fact remains that because of the accident his left as well as right leg were fractured and that the right leg is shortened fay half-an-inch and the appellant has to carry on the rest of his life with this disability. Further, it is also a known fact that a man whose limbs are fractured cannot be considered as a normal man in future as those limbs continue to be brittle/atrophy and they cannot carry the same weight as an unfractured bone. Hence, definitely both on the ground of shortening and on the ground of fracture the disability is continuing and permanent one. Hence, both the Courts below went wrong in not awarding any compensation on this ground. Hence, we are inclined to award compensation of Rs. 40,000. 00 for continuing and permanent disability. As far as the claim of the appellant for loss of earning power and expectancy both the Courts below rightly rejected the same, as this disability will not come in any way in carrying on his official duties. ( 6 ) IN this result, the LPA is allowed to the extent indicated above and the compensation for pain and suffering has been increased to Rs. 25,000. 00 from Rs. 15,000. 00 apart from awarding Rs. 40,000. 00for continuing and permanent disability. The amount payable to the appellant after deducting the amount already paid shall carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.