Judgment Bhagwati Prasad, J.-Heard 2. In these appeals, the claimants have raised the question of inadequacy of award. Other questions which were decided by the Tribunal have not been challenged before me. Issue No. 1 regarding negligence have been decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Thus, the question of negligence is no more required to be gone into. At the instance of the claimants, what is required to be gone into in this appeal, is the extent of claim which every claimant is entitled to get. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 334/2001 3. In the case as set up in the appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 334/2001, the husband of the claimant Shri Om Prakash died in the accident. He was a retired Railway servant getting pension of sum of Rs. 2,000/-per month. He had been appointed with a Engineering Company. The Tribunal has found that in the background that the deceased Om Prakash was to get a salary of Rs. 2,500/-, the fact of salary of Rs. 2,500/-has been accepted by the Tribunal. 4.Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company was not in a position to refute this. But the Tribunal after deducting Rs. 900/-as personal expenses computed Rs. 1,600/-to be the dependency and that came out to be Rs. 19,200/-per year and a multiplier of 5 was applied. While doing so, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss of pension because with the death, the pension of Rs. 2,000/-as was admissible to the employee had altogether been neglected by the Tribunal. Thus, the income which was required to be considered was Rs. 2,000/-+ Rs. 2,500/-i.e., Rs. 4,500/-and if one third is deducted, then it dependency would have come to Rs. 3,000/-per month. Rs. 3,000/-if multiplied with 12, would make the income of the deceased to be Rs. 36,000/-P.A. Thus, the dependency as calculated by the Tribunal as Rs. 19,200/-is considered to be less and this should have been Rs. 36,000/- per year. Though a higher multiplier is also considered to be appropriate but that is not invoked in this case and treating the dependency to be Rs. 36,000/- per year, if a multiplier of 5 is applied, the dependency comes out to be Rs. 1,80,000/-. Other items of the award are not interfered. Thus, the total award comes out to be Rs. Though a higher multiplier is also considered to be appropriate but that is not invoked in this case and treating the dependency to be Rs. 36,000/- per year, if a multiplier of 5 is applied, the dependency comes out to be Rs. 1,80,000/-. Other items of the award are not interfered. Thus, the total award comes out to be Rs. 2,07,999/-on which interest will be as awarded by the Tribunal. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 579/2001 5.This appeal is in relation to injuries sustained to a young lad, Mayank of 7 years of age. He has sustained 35 stitches on his face and had a fracture in his right leg. He was admitted in the hospital for 26 days. A young boy of inpersonable aged when sustains a fracture in the right leg and 35 stitches on his face at a tender age and remains in the hospital for 26 days, he suffers a mental trauma of the magnitude which cannot be computed in money. A young lad who has suffered a shock in his early days of life, which he would remember throughout his life. The days passed in the hospital will be like a nightmare throughout his life. Every moment will be one like a bad dream. He has lost the grace and charm which would have been there on his face without those stitches. The entire future prospects of the boy has been subject to a jeopardy by the effect of the accident. He has been awarded Rs. 21,100/-which is considered to be not only insufficient but something which is not even alibi for the award which a young boy should have been granted. The Tribunal was only content with grant of Rs. 21,100/-, what is considered to be inappropriate. For the entire episode, only a symbolic grant is being made to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000 /-. Feelings of a young boy when he attains his prime youth, with lost radical facial expression shall always be a haunting experience with face being impaired with 35 stitches sustained. Therefore, the award is modified and enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 578/2001 6.This case of Miss Harshita is not better than what is the case of Mayank. She is five year old young girl. She has sustained 80 stitches on her face and right leg has been fractured. Therefore, the award is modified and enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 578/2001 6.This case of Miss Harshita is not better than what is the case of Mayank. She is five year old young girl. She has sustained 80 stitches on her face and right leg has been fractured. If these were not there, then naturally, Harshita in her prime youth could be expected to be a prima donna. All that what could be expected of a young girl would have been her dreams which have been shattered but for this accident. She has been awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000 which again is considered to be an amount which is more of a refuse for an award. But after so many years, it would not be appropriate to enhance it to some extent. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-for a young girl of five years of age for her loss that could have been her natural possession. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 581/2001 7.The claimant Sanjay was a man of 30 years of age and he had sustained hip fracture and has been operated twice for hip joint and screws had been fixed to him. He remain hospitalized from 111.1995 to 111.1995 at Jodhpur Hospital, from 012.1995 to 012.1995 at M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur, from 012.1995 to 20.02.1996 at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and operated and again operated on 24.05.1996. He was having agency of mines. A person who has sustained injuries on hip and sustained 33% physical disability, would hardly be in a position to run his business. For all this, he has been awarded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/-which is not considered to be appropriate. It is deemed proper to award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-to him which would atleast compensate the trauma he suffered as indoor patient and would change his life style and occupation because he would not be in a position to trade in stones with his physical incapacity. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 580/2001 8.The claimant Smt. Kalawati suffered injury on her left heel. She has been awarded a sum of Rs. 4,120/-. Her injury being not to be very serious, her award is not interfered. The appeal filed by Smt. Kalawati is hereby dismissed. 9.With the modifications as above, the appeals are allowed except that of Smt. Kalawati.