JUDGMENT : J.R. Midha, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the award dated 28.9.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 31,000 has been awarded to him. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount. 2. On 28.2.1999, the appellant and his son were travelling in a rickshaw cycle from Mangolpuri for taking a bus to New Delhi Railway Station when jeep No. DL 8C-B 8918 came from opposite direction and hit the rickshaw resulting in serious injuries to the appellant. The appellant was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and thereafter shifted to Military Hospital, Delhi Cantt. He remained hospitalised till 10.6.1999. The appellant was also treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The appellant suffered permanent disability of 25 per cent of left lower limb due to post-traumatic deformity of left lower limb with restricted range of motion of left hip joint. 3. The appellant was 43 years of age at the time of the accident and was working as Havaldar in Indian Army, earning Rs. 10,500 per month. The appellant was retired from the Army on 31.3.2001. The appellant claims to have been retired as he became unfit for Army service. The appellant further claims that but for the disability suffered in accident, he would have continued working and would have got promotion to the post of Naib Subedar and then Subedar and so on. The appellant is now drawing a pension of Rs. 2,275 per month. The appellant further claims that he would have got a civil job after retirement but due to disability, he is unable to do any work. 4. At the trial of this case, the appellant appeared as PW 1 and proved the disability certificate, Exh. PL The appellant also produced three other witnesses. PW 2, a clerk of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital proved the MLC--Exh. PW2/1. PW 3, Head Constable, Yogender from P.S. Sultanpuri proved the F.I.R.--Exh. PW3/1. PW 4, Shankar Lal is the eyewitness of the accident. 5. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 31,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum to the appellant. The break-up of Rs. 31,000 is as under: (i) Towards medical expenses Rs.5000 (ii) Towards special diet Rs.500 (iii) Towards conveyance Rs.500 (iv) Towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities Rs.25,000 6. 5. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 31,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum to the appellant. The break-up of Rs. 31,000 is as under: (i) Towards medical expenses Rs.5000 (ii) Towards special diet Rs.500 (iii) Towards conveyance Rs.500 (iv) Towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities Rs.25,000 6. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds: (i) Enhancement of medical expenses, special diet, conveyance and attendant. (ii) Award of compensation of loss of earning capacity. (iii) Award of compensation towards loss of income during treatment. (iv) Enhancement of compensation for pain and suffering. (v) Enhancement of compensation for loss of amenities. 7. With respect to appellant's claim of medical expenses, special diet, attendant and conveyance the appellant appeared in witness-box as PW 1 and stated that his family came to Delhi to stay when he was hospitalised. He stated that he spent on medicines when he was on sick leave for eight weeks. However, no proof of medical expenses has been given by the appellant. It appears that the medical expenses of the appellant were borne by the Army. However, considering that the family of the appellant came from outside (the appellant is a permanent resident of District Champawat, Uttaranchal) to stay and would have incurred some amount on conveyance, diet, etc., the amount of Rs. 6,000 awarded by the learned Tribunal for medical expenses, special diet and conveyance is enhanced to Rs. 10,000. 8. The appellant suffered 25 per cent disability which has reduced his earning capacity and, therefore, he claims compensation on this account. The appellant was earning Rs. 10,500 per month when he retired from the Army on 31.3.2001. He is drawing a pension of Rs. 2,275 per month and after deducting the same from the salary, the net loss comes to Rs. 8,225. Considering his age at the time of accident, it would be appropriate to apply a multiplier of 15. However, the appellant would be entitled only to 25 per cent of the amount he would have earned for 15 years. The amount, accordingly, comes to Rs. 3,70,125 (Rs. 8,225 x 12 x 15 x 0.25). 9. With respect to the claim towards loss of income during treatment, no evidence has been rendered by the appellant on this account. It appears that the appellant has received full salary during the treatment. The amount, accordingly, comes to Rs. 3,70,125 (Rs. 8,225 x 12 x 15 x 0.25). 9. With respect to the claim towards loss of income during treatment, no evidence has been rendered by the appellant on this account. It appears that the appellant has received full salary during the treatment. The counsel for the appellant submits that even if the appellant has received full salary, he is entitled to loss of income during treatment. I do not agree with this contention and reject the same. 10. The appellant has challenged that the amount awarded by the Tribunal for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to be very meagre. The appellant remained hospitalised for more than four months and has been 25 per cent disabled and, therefore, he claims compensation of at least Rs. 1,00,000 towards permanent disability and Rs. 1,00,000 towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 11. The learned amicus curiae refers to and relies upon the following judgments: (i) Concord of India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC). In this case, Apex Court observed that determination of quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. (ii) R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC). In this case, the appellant was Judge in City Civil Court for some time till he resigned in 1964 and was thereafter practising as a lawyer at the time of accident in the year 1980. The appellant suffered 100 per cent disability. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 26,25,992 which was reduced by the High Court to Rs. 8,57,352 against which the appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the entire law relating to the computation of compensation in injury cases in paras 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 1,50,000 towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of the loss of amenities of life apart from the other heads in respect of the injuries resulting in paraplegia below the waist and total disability to the appellant. It was also held that while computing compensation for non-pecuniary loss, while following precedents, where conventional amount has been awarded, the fall in value of money should be kept in mind. It was also held that while computing compensation for non-pecuniary loss, while following precedents, where conventional amount has been awarded, the fall in value of money should be kept in mind. (iii) Rattan Lal Mehta v. Rajinder Kapoor, 1996 ACJ 372 (Delhi). The Division Bench of this Court discussed at length the principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The learned Counsel has laid emphasis on paras 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26 and 29 of the judgment, especially para 23 of the judgment where it is held that conventional figures for non-pecuniary damages must keep pace with the times and take into account inflation and advances in science, medicine and rehabilitation. The learned Counsel further lays special emphasis on para 28(vi) of the judgment where the Division Bench has held that non-pecuniary damages cannot be kept low because pecuniary damages are high. (iv) Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF, 1998 ACJ 859 (SC). This case relates to multiple injuries suffered by the appellant in an accident in the year 1977 resulting in several fractures and bone grafting was to be done. The appellant suffered permanent disability of shortening of right leg by three inches. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 33,000 which was enhanced to Rs. 58,000 by the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court enhanced the award amount to Rs. 4,00,000. The judgment shows the liberal approach in awarding the compensation. (v) Swatantra Kumar v. Qamar Ali, 1998 ACJ 920 (SC). This case relates to the injuries resulting in shortening of leg by 1.75 inches. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had increased the award by Rs. 1,00,000. (vi) Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACJ 1735 (SC). In this case, burn injuries to the extent of 10 per cent were suffered by some of the claimants. The Apex Court after discussing the principles for grant of compensation awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000 to each of those persons. The court observed as under: (13) ...In examining the question of damages for personal injury, it is axiomatic that pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages are required to be taken into account. In case of pecuniary damages, loss of earnings or earning capacity, medical, hospital and nursing expenses, the loss of matrimonial prospects, if proved, are required to be considered. The court observed as under: (13) ...In examining the question of damages for personal injury, it is axiomatic that pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages are required to be taken into account. In case of pecuniary damages, loss of earnings or earning capacity, medical, hospital and nursing expenses, the loss of matrimonial prospects, if proved, are required to be considered. In the case of non-pecuniary losses, loss of expectation of life, loss of amenities or capacity for enjoying life, loss or impairment of physiological functions, impairment or loss of anatomical structures or body tissues, pain and suffering and mental suffering are to be considered.... (vii) K. Narasimha Murthy v. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 ACJ 1109 (Karnataka). In this case, claimant was a constable in CRPF who suffered multiple fracture of both legs in an accident dated 21.4.1996 resulting in 54 per cent permanent disability in respect of the whole body. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,48,200 against which the matter came in appeal before Karnataka High Court. The Division Bench discussed the entire law relating to computation of compensation in injury cases in paras 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 33, 38, 40 and 41 of the judgment and computed the compensation at Rs. 14,00,000. The High Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of amenities of life, frustration, disappointment, unhappiness and inconvenience, Rs. 10,80,000 for loss of future income, Rs. 50,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs. 55,800 towards attendant charges and travelling expenses, Rs. 20,000 towards special diet, Rs. 76,320 towards the loss of income and Rs. 20,000 towards future medical expenses. For computing the compensation for loss of future income, the Division Bench applied a multiplier of 15 in respect of the claimant aged 31 years. (viii) Saurabh Kumar v. Naresh Kumar, 2008 ACJ 1494 (Delhi). This case relates to the accident dated 9.1.2003 resulting in amputation of right leg above knee of a child aged 13 years. The permanent disability was assessed at 80 per cent. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,18,000 against which the matter came up in appeal before this Court. this Court enhanced non-pecuniary damages from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering and loss of future enjoyment of life. (ix) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satish Sharma, 2008 ACJ 2259 (Delhi). The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,18,000 against which the matter came up in appeal before this Court. this Court enhanced non-pecuniary damages from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering and loss of future enjoyment of life. (ix) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satish Sharma, 2008 ACJ 2259 (Delhi). This case relates to the accident dated 30.11.2003 resulting in amputation of the right leg below knee of a young man aged 26 years resulting in 60 per cent permanent disability. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,34,850 against which the matter came up in appeal in this Court. this Court referred to and relied upon the previous judgments in which compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 was awarded towards non-pecuniary damages. After discussing the said judgments in para 16, this Court held that between years 1985 and 1990, the courts have awarded about Rs. 3,00,000 under the head of non-pecuniary damages for amputation of leg resulting in permanent disability of 50 per cent and above. Following the said judgments, this Court upheld the award of non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 3,25,000 to the claimant under the head of non-pecuniary damages. (x) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Kumar Mittal, 2008 ACJ 1300 (Delhi). In this case the claimants suffered serious injuries in a road accident dated 13.6.2001 resulting in amputation of right leg below knee and the permanent disability was assessed at 60 per cent. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,39,045 against which the matter came up in appeal before this Court. this Court again examined the previous cases resulting to the non-pecuniary damages for amputation of leg and held that Rs. 2,50,000 awarded to the claimant to be fair and reasonable. 12. Considering the judgments cited above, I find that the courts have awarded compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities as separate heads. In the present case, the appellant has suffered 23 per cent disability. It would, therefore, be appropriate to award Rs. 25,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000 towards loss of amenities. 13. The total amount payable to the appellant is as under: (i) Medical expenses, special diet and conveyance Rs.10,000 (ii) Loss of earning capacity Rs.3,60,000 (iii) Non-pecuniary damages towards pain and suffering Rs.25,000 (iv) Non-pecuniary damages towards loss of amenties Rs.25,000 Total Rs.4,20,000 14. 25,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000 towards loss of amenities. 13. The total amount payable to the appellant is as under: (i) Medical expenses, special diet and conveyance Rs.10,000 (ii) Loss of earning capacity Rs.3,60,000 (iii) Non-pecuniary damages towards pain and suffering Rs.25,000 (iv) Non-pecuniary damages towards loss of amenties Rs.25,000 Total Rs.4,20,000 14. The last contention of appellant's counsel is that the learned Tribunal has awarded very low interest of 5 per cent. It should be at least 12 per cent. Considering the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal v. U.P. State Road Trans. Corporation, 2008 ACJ 2041 (SC), I allow interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. 15. This appeal is allowed. The award is enhanced from Rs. 31,000 to Rs. 4,20,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. No costs. 16. The enhanced amount along with interest be deposited by the respondents with the learned Tribunal within 30 days. The learned Tribunal is directed to release 30 per cent of the amount to the appellant and remaining 70 per cent of the amount be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 10 years on which no loan, advance or withdrawal be permitted without the prior permission of the learned Tribunal but the periodical interest be permitted to be released to the appellant. Learned Tribunal shall first release the cheque towards the amount to be kept in fixed deposit and the remaining amount be released only after the original fixed deposit receipt with proper endorsement is shown to the learned Tribunal and the copy of the FDR duly attested by the Bank is placed on record of the learned Tribunal. 17. I would like to record that this case was taken up on 20.1.2009 when it was noted that the counsel for the appellant had not been appearing since July 2007. The appellant is permanently staying at Uttaranchal and he visited Delhi only to appear in this case. The appellant expressed his helplessness due to the continuous non-appearance of his lawyer. I, therefore, appointed Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, who was present in court as amicus curiae to assist this Court. Mr. The appellant is permanently staying at Uttaranchal and he visited Delhi only to appear in this case. The appellant expressed his helplessness due to the continuous non-appearance of his lawyer. I, therefore, appointed Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, who was present in court as amicus curiae to assist this Court. Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate rendered very effective assistance to this Court and I place on record my appreciation for his services. Mr. A.K. Soni, counsel for respondent No. 3, also effectively assisted in this matter.