DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN the case of R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), a two-Judge bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and what constitutes the same in para 9 expressed the view as under: " (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 the 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 the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; and (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,. 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,. e. , on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; and (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. " ( 2 ) IT is the fundamental truth that any compensation in terms of money cannot ameliorate human suffering and cannot usher in individual/personal deprivation. A physical frame, a glorious gift of nature, cannot be renewed or rejuvenate once it is shattered. The case at hand exposits an extremely tragic picture since a young colleen sweta, aged about 18 years, a collegiate met with a motor accident on 11. 7. A physical frame, a glorious gift of nature, cannot be renewed or rejuvenate once it is shattered. The case at hand exposits an extremely tragic picture since a young colleen sweta, aged about 18 years, a collegiate met with a motor accident on 11. 7. 2000 when she was sitting on a stationary jeep which was parked in the right side of the road, a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-K 8194 being rashly and negligently driven by the driver dashed against the jeep as a consequence of which she sustained grievous fracture in her skull which eventually resulted in blinding of the left eye partially and loss of right eye and disfiguration of the face and a bone gap on the skull. Be it placed on record the accident took place at Khandwa Road and initially she was treated at Khandwa and thereafter she was treated at M. Y. Hospital at Indore. She was admitted for 20 days where she was operated upon. Despite the operation she did not fully recover. Additionally she also lost her memory. Under these circumstances, she initiated an action under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby the tribunal, considering the material brought on record awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 on several heads, namely, loss of income, physical pain and suffering, manner of life she is to lead, other future expenditure and other ancillary expenditure, mental pain and suffering. The Tribunal, in addition to the aforesaid, awarded interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of presentation of the application till the date of realisation of the amount. ( 3 ) MR. Anil Lala, the learned counsel appearing for claimant-appellant submitted that the accident has metamorphosed the victim to a semi-vegetable and as the quality of life has atrophied the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is absolutely meagre. It is submitted by him when a young girl, as has been accepted by the Tribunal, has suffered so many injuries, the amount of compensation awarded is extremely low and far away from the concept of just compensation as engrafted under the Act. It is submitted by him when a young girl, as has been accepted by the Tribunal, has suffered so many injuries, the amount of compensation awarded is extremely low and far away from the concept of just compensation as engrafted under the Act. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that Tribunal has not considered the factum of permanent disability ; deterioration of quality of life; condition in which claimant-appellant has been thrown; the amount that has been spent; the future expenses that are likely to occur to sustain her life and other concomitant factors. Learned counsel argued that the quantum has to be enhanced as the claimant had put forth a claim of rs. 25,50,000 but the Tribunal turned a nelson's eye on the factual scenario and granted a meagre sum which by no stretch of imagination can meet the statutory requirement. ( 4 ) MR. Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the insurer upon whom the liability has been fastened supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal contended that the tribunal has considered the facts in their entirety as undraped before it and if the award is scrutinized it cannot be said to be fallacious. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the various paras of the award to highlight that the Tribunal has taken stock of the fact situation including the social strata to which she belongs, possibility of future income and all the other necessary aspects and hence, the award has to be treated as impeccable warranting no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this court. ( 5 ) THE injuries are not in dispute. The tribunal has not granted anything towards permanent disability. The young girl has lost her one eye and there is partial blindness in the other. In this context we may refer to the decision rendered in the case of M. P. Human Rights Commission v. State of M. P. , AIR 2003 MP 17 . In the said case this court while dealing with the loss of vision in an eye camp conducted by the state expressed the view as under: " (24 ). . . The question that arises for consideration, is it sufficient? Is it ideal? the affected persons belong to different age groups. Some of them are in early forties and fifties and some are septuagenarians. . . The question that arises for consideration, is it sufficient? Is it ideal? the affected persons belong to different age groups. Some of them are in early forties and fifties and some are septuagenarians. By loss of their eyesight they have become invalid to a great extent. They are compelled to lead a life of dependant. They are to be guided at every stage and to be looked after and be compelled to face humiliation. A man who has lost his eyesight, even in respect of one eye, faces ignominy. He develops a sense of constant fear. Phobia reigns. It has been said that fear corrodes the inner depth of the soul. Their family members might not be in a position to look after them. Possibly they might have been assisting other members of the family for some domestic activities but because of this unfortunate blow on them they have become a liability. No human being desires to become a liability on anyone. No person wants to be treated as an non-person. A person in his individual capacity has the entitlement to be a protagonist in his own life, but the life appears to be not worth living when one has become half blind. There may be cases, when total vision is lost. But in the case at hand, nothing has been shown that they were totally without vision. The State organises the eye camps to help people to recover from eye problems. The people go there with hope and aspiration that there would be successful operation of the cataract and they will get back the full vision. The hopes harboured in the bottom of the heart has been crucified by sheer negligence and crude callousness of the people who carried the operation. Norms have been indicated in annexure p6 but there has been no post-operational care and total slackness. It is not disputed that infection spread in the eye camp. Spreading of infection when operation is done is avoidable. Utmost care should have been taken. Non-sterilisation of the equipment, mishandling of bandage, inappropriate clothing of the persons who attend the patients after operation and such acts give rise to infection. There is no allegation that the patients were responsible for infection. Spreading of infection when operation is done is avoidable. Utmost care should have been taken. Non-sterilisation of the equipment, mishandling of bandage, inappropriate clothing of the persons who attend the patients after operation and such acts give rise to infection. There is no allegation that the patients were responsible for infection. Thus, in my considered opinion the entire blame has to be put on the State, because it has arranged the eye camp and the government doctors carried out the operation. The State had undertaken the obligation to better the vision of the people who belong to the poorest strata of the society but instead of getting their vision, due to negligence of the doctors and the assisting persons the patients lost the eyesight and became half blind. The state is squarely responsible for such a cataclysm. They really cannot be compensated in such a catastrophe in terms of money, for a half blind can only know what agony and anguish he faces; how much dependent he becomes on others on certain occasions; and if for some reason the other eye has already been affected; the endangerment is incomprehensible. The life becomes miserable; the human soul cries silently and the silent cry corrodes the quintessence of life. Though there cannot be real compensation but the law cannot maintain a sphinx like silence but has to rise and make the guilt suffer. " ( 6 ) WE have referred to the aforesaid decision only to highlight that the loss of vision was taken an exceptional facet in the said case. True it is, the damages granted in the said case was in different context. They were the persons of different age and here a young colleen has lost one eye and partial vision of the other. There has been disfiguration of the face and a gap in the skull. Submission of Mr. Lala is that her marriage prospects have been zeroed. It would not be out of place to state here that it does not need Soloman's wisdom to conceive that in these circumstances she has become incapacitated to do her normal work. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the cumulative effect of the injuries caused and permanent nature thereof, the compensation on this score should be rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) only. ( 7 ) NOW we shall proceed to the spectrum of loss of future income. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the cumulative effect of the injuries caused and permanent nature thereof, the compensation on this score should be rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakh) only. ( 7 ) NOW we shall proceed to the spectrum of loss of future income. It has been brought on record that she was studying in a college. It has been put forth that possibility of all her performances have been crushed in a solitary moment in the said accident. Long back it has been said what is the point of life if the soul is lost. It would not be redundant to state here life would be in continuum but she would not be alive as life should be. There has to be guesswork as far as loss of income is concerned. While determining this facet conjecture has a role, it cannot be totally marginalized. The Tribunal has granted rs. 1,00,000 for loss of income. We cannot concur with the same. We are inclined to think it should be Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh) only. ( 8 ) THE next aspect that we would like to advert is the amount spent on treatment. The Claims Tribunal on consideration of the material brought on record has granted rs. 40,000. She remained in the hospital for twenty days. The Tribunal had not taken into consideration the amount spent on transportation, attendance and special diet. We, therefore, add a further sum of rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand) only on this score. ( 9 ) AS far as physical pain and suffering is concerned the Tribunal has awarded rs. 10,000. We do not have to pause to deliberate whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding the said amount. Irrefragably it is neither just nor proper. The impact of the accident was absolutely shocking. The skull bone has entered into the eye disfiguring the face and created a gap. When such a situation occurred nothing can compensate and Rs. 10,000 cannot be regarded as sufficient and hence, it is enhanced to rs. 40,000 (rupees forty thousand) only. ( 10 ) THERE is material that she is still availing the treatment as she has to live. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 1,00,000 for future treatment. We are inclined to think the aforesaid sum is just and proper if the award is considered in entirety. 40,000 (rupees forty thousand) only. ( 10 ) THERE is material that she is still availing the treatment as she has to live. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 1,00,000 for future treatment. We are inclined to think the aforesaid sum is just and proper if the award is considered in entirety. ( 11 ) EX consequent, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified and amount of compensation is determined at rs. 7,00,000 (rupees seven lakh) only. The differential sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of the application before tribunal till the date of deposition. The said sum shall be deposited before the tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. Out of the total enhanced amount, 90 per cent shall be kept in a fixed deposit only to be withdrawn with the leave of the court by the victim. 10 per cent shall be disbursed in her favour. ( 12 ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. .