M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS Memorandum of First Appeal by the appellant is filed under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), challenging the validity and legality of the judgment dated 25-11-1996, passed in M. V. C. No. 631 of 1992 and other cases, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, wherein the learned Member had awarded a compensation of Rs. 53,000/- to the appellant on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident which had taken place on 3-5-1992 involving a K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing Regn. No. KA 09. F. 1179 on mysore-Bangalore Road near gate of Siddaiahna Koppal-Indavalu, so far quantum of compensation awarded. ( 2 ) THE Court has head the arguments on both sides. ( 3 ) IN view of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal and at the time of hearing arguments, the following points would arise for consideration. 1. Whether the judgment of the Trial Court is legal and valid in restricting the claim of the appellant to Rs. 53,000/-?2. Whether there is any for this Court to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court?3. What judgment or award? ( 4 ) SRI P. S. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgment of the Trial Court is illegal and invalid and restricting the claim of the appellant to Rs. 53,000/ -. The Trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The material on record also shows that the appellant had sustained serious bodily injuries and also lost one kidney consequent to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence he prayed for allowing the appeal. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Smt. H. R. Renuka, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the lower Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, had arrived at a right conclusion, so far as it related to quantum of compensation. The appellant has failed to make out any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence she prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The appellant has failed to make out any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence she prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 6 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that the lower Court, on appreciation of the evidence, had come to a conclusion that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. Moreover, the K. S. R. T. C. has not come up in appeal challenging the said finding. Hence this aspect need not be considered at all. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the quantum of compensation, the material on record shows that appellant had been a young boy of 19 years and had been a mason by profession and he had sustained blunt injury to the abdomen resulting in removal of right kidney and also lacerated wound over the parietal region and two abrasion injuries. The material on record also shows that the appellant had been an in-patient in Sanjay gandhi Hospital, Bangalore, between 4-5-1992 and 18-5-1992. The oral evidence of doctor also confirms the said injuries and also the hospitali- sation. He has also deposed that the appellant had come up for follow-up treatment on nine occasions. If there is any problem to the other kidney, the appellant will have to go for kidney transplantation. The medical bills on record amounts to Rs. 3,000/ -. ( 8 ) NOW the Court will have to assess the evidence on record to arrive at just conclusion. ( 9 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it is also felt necessary to mention a decision of this Court in Basavaraj v Shekar, wherein the Division bench of this Court has clearly laid down the various heads under which an injured claimant would be entitled to, following the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 1. Pain and suffering; 2. Loss of amenities; 3. Shortened expectation of life, if any; 4. Loss of earnings or earning capacity or both; and 5. Medical treatment and other special damages. ( 10 ) I also feel it necessary to mention another judgment of the Apex court in R. D. Hattangadi v M/s. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Others, wherein it is held that a claimant in an injury case arising out of motor vehicle accident is entitled for compensation under two broad heads, pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. ( 10 ) I also feel it necessary to mention another judgment of the Apex court in R. D. Hattangadi v M/s. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Others, wherein it is held that a claimant in an injury case arising out of motor vehicle accident is entitled for compensation under two broad heads, pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. Under the head pecuniary damages, the claimant would be entitled to compensation under the following heads. (I) Damages for mental and physical shock, pain, suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) Damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i. e. , on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) Damages for the loss of expectation of life, i. e. , on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) Inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. Under the head pecuniary damages, he would be entitled for compensation under the following heads. 1. Medical attendants; 2. Loss of earning of profit up to the date of the trial; and 3. The other material loss. It has been further held in its very nature whenever a Tribunal or 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 be viewed with objective standards ( 11 ) IT is also felt necessary to mention a decision rendered in Baker's case, supra, wherein it has been held. "a man is not compensated for the physical injury; he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury. His loss is not in having a stiff leg; it is in his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those amenities which depend on freedom of movement and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. . . . . . "it is also felt necessary to mention another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Concord India Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Nirmala devi and Others, wherein it has been held that. . . . . . "it is also felt necessary to mention another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Concord India Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Nirmala devi and Others, wherein it has been held that. "determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales". ( 12 ) I also feel it necessary to mention another judgment of Lord justice Salmon rendered in the case of Fletcher v Autocar and Transporters limited , wherein it has been held that. "the damages awarded should be such that the ordinary sensible man would not instinctively regard them either mean or extravagant, but would consider them to be sensible and fair. . . . "it is also felt necessary that in the first decision detailed supra, their Lordships (as they were) had referred to a decision of Justice Field, J. , in the case of Philips v South Western Railway Company, wherein it has been held. 1. AIR 1979 SC 1666 : (1979) 4 SCC 365 : 1979 SCC (Cri.) 996 2. (1968)1 All ER 726 3. (1879) 4 QBD 406"you cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. (The plaintiff) can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation, once and 2. The dictum of Parke B, about damage for a lost limb is hardly true nowadays. See also P. 47, note (1) where it is pointed out that Judges, when saying that 'damages cannot be a perfect compensation', commonly mean that they cannot be calculated by exact arithmetic - not that the amount should be inadequate for all. He has done no wrong; he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants, and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered". ( 13 ) BEARING these cardinal settled principles in mind, let me examine the material on record to show that as to what compensation the appellant would be entitled to. In other words, what would be the just compensation. ( 13 ) BEARING these cardinal settled principles in mind, let me examine the material on record to show that as to what compensation the appellant would be entitled to. In other words, what would be the just compensation. It has to be borne in mind that the appellant had been a young boy of 19 years, a mason by profession and apart from other injuries, the right kidney had been shattered as seen in Ex. P. 85 and the oral evidence of P. W. 6. It is to be mentioned that the right kidney had been removed, as could be seen from the evidence of the doctor and he has also stated in definite terms that in case the other kidney were to give any room for problem, the appellant will have to go for kidney transplantation. It is also to be remembered that an young boy suffered serious bodily injury and has been left with the said disability. It is also to be borne in mind that he has suffered the said injury for no fault of his and the driver of the bus in question had been responsible for the accident. It is not disputed that the bus in question belongs to k. S. R. T. C. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, had awarded a global compensation of Rs. 53,000/- and the same is totally a meagre amount of compensation. It is also to be borne in mind that if anything goes wrong with the claimant on account of the injury sustained and disability with which he has been left, he cannot run from pillar to post nor can he approach the Claims Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. It is also to be borne in mind that the appellant will have to spend rest of his life with the said disability and the appellant would definitely have a psychological weakness on account of the disability which would keep lingering in mind throughout his lifetime, the same would also affect his earning capacity. ( 14 ) TAKING all the relevant factors into consideration, the Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- as general damages for the injury, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life and also inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. ( 14 ) TAKING all the relevant factors into consideration, the Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- as general damages for the injury, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life and also inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. In addition, the appellant is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medicines, treatment, conveyance and other incidental expenses and also pecuniary loss during the period of treatment. On the whole, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. The Trial court had awarded a sum of Rs. 53,000/- as total compensation and as such the appellant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,97,000/ -. ( 15 ) NOW, the Court will have to see whether there is any need for revising the rate of interest. The Trial Court had awarded interest at 6% per annum. The accident in question had taken place on 3-5-1992 (more than a decade ago ). In this context, it is necessary to mention a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and others v New India Assurance Company Limited and Others, wherein the Apex Court after considering the change in economy and that the policy of the Reserve Bank of India in lowering the rate of interest, had awarded interest at 9% per annum. It is needless to say that awarding of interest is in pursuance of statutory provisions of Section 171 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rate at which interest falls within the discretionary arena of the Court which should take into consideration the date of accident, the period of pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court and the reasons for long pendency of the case and other aspects. In the case on hand, the accident had taken place more than a decade ago and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the lower Court was justified in awarding the interest at 6% per annum and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. In the case on hand, the accident had taken place more than a decade ago and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the lower Court was justified in awarding the interest at 6% per annum and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. ( 16 ) THE appellant is stated to be a mason by profession, an young boy of 19 years at the time of accident, coming from mofussil side and taking these aspects into consideration and also the decision in General Manager, kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others, the Court is of the opinion that substantial amount of enhanced compensation will have to be ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant for a reasonable period. ( 17 ) THE Court passes the following: orderthe appeal is allowed as prayed with costs. The appellant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,97,000/- with costs and interest on the said amount at 6% per annum from the date of petition before the Trial Court till the date of payment. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- is ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the appellant in a Nationalised Bank for a period of five years. During this period, the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the interest that may accrue on the said amount. The balance of the said amount shall be paid to the appellant now. --- *** --- .