S. K. GANGELE, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT-CLAIMANT has filed the present appeal against the award dated 2. 8. 2000, passed in Claim case No. 157 of 1999. Claimant-appellant has submitted before the Tribunal in his application that he has sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 14. 5. 1996, when he was coming to Ujjain from Indore in his car and it was dashed by a truck No. MP 09-KA 3862 near the village Baroli driven rashly and negligently by the driver. ( 2 ) HE further submitted that he received injuries on his head and urethra. Dr. N. H. Sarda was examined before the Tribunal as witness No. 1. He deposed that there were strictures in urethra of the appellant (Rohit)and it causes repeated infection. His urine tube was congested due to the injuries in urethra. There was 54 per cent permanent disability and the other doctor Vasant Vale who was a Neurosurgeon also examined as witness No. 8. He deposed that Rohit was admitted in his hospital in an unconscious condition. In C. T. scan there was swelling in his brain and he became conscious on 24. 5. 1996. He was shifted from Choithram hospital. Dr. Chandrashekhar Thathe has also been examined as a witness No. 9 who was a Surgeon, working in Choithram Hospital. He deposed that urine tube of Rohit was shortened and catheter was inserted for urination and process of catheterisation is necessary for a long time and if the above process has not been done his kidney may be damaged. ( 3 ) FROM the evidence of all the doctors it is clear that Rohit suffered permanent injury in the urethra, his urine tube was shortened and he needs continuous catheterisation for discharge of urine. The Tribunal also held that there was 54 per cent permanent disability to Rohit on account of aforesaid injury, awarded only Rs. 20,000 as a compensation for pain and suffering. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal awarded less compensation to the appellant and also committed an error of law. Did not award any compensation with regard to loss of future earnings. He relied on the judgment reported in A. Robert v. United India Insurance co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 252 (SC ). ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal awarded less compensation to the appellant and also committed an error of law. Did not award any compensation with regard to loss of future earnings. He relied on the judgment reported in A. Robert v. United India Insurance co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 252 (SC ). ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. ( 6 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), has held as under with regard to grant of compensation:" (9) Broadly speaking, while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and 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. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of appellant. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of appellant. That is why it has been said by the courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury 'so far as money can compensate' because it is impossible to equate the money with the human suffering or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. (13) This court in the case of C. K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhi Kuttan Nair, 1970 ACJ 110 (SC), in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed: 'in assessing damages, court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable'. " ( 7 ) ON the basis of the above facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be ruled out that plaintiff would suffer pain and suffering and also deficiency in his normal life throughout his life. In the above said judgment in R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under with regard to grant of compensation for pain and suffering (para 17):"when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. " ( 8 ) ON the basis of above principle of law, it would be appropriate to grant similar compensation to appellant in this case also, i. e. , Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain and suffering instead of Rs. 20,000 granted by tribunal. On the basis of above discussion in my opinion it would be just and proper, if amount of compensation be enhanced by rs. 80,000 in addition to Rs. 20,000 granted by the Tribunal. Hence, appellant will get enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain and suffering instead of Rs. 20,000 granted by tribunal. On the basis of above discussion in my opinion it would be just and proper, if amount of compensation be enhanced by rs. 80,000 in addition to Rs. 20,000 granted by the Tribunal. Hence, appellant will get enhanced compensation of Rs. 80,000 which shall carry an interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of filing of claim application by the appellant before Claims tribunal. With the above modification in the award the appeal is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .