JUDGMENT J.B.PARDIWALA ( 1. ) THE present Appeal is at the instance of original claimant arising from the order dated 27th August 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patan (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.428 of 2002. THE Appeal relates to the award of compensation made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') to the appellant by the Tribunal, which was claimed against the respondent Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. THE appellant filed a claim for Rs.18 lac at the rate of 18% interest per annum under different heads. ( 2. ) THE Tribunal, as per its judgment dated 27th August 2004, awarded the appellant Rs.4,59,200=00 at the rate of 9% interest per annum from the date of the application. THE award to the tune of Rs.4,59,200=00 has been computed under various heads, for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses caused by the accident. THE appellant submits that this award was inadequate to meet with all the expenses incurred and likely to be incurred and presses his claim for the full amount of Rs.18 lac as prayed for in the claim petition. Thus, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of the amount of compensation. (I) EVIDENCE OF ACCIDENT : THE accident in question occurred on 30th July 1991 at Patan town somewhere near a place called 'Ghanshyam Park'. At the relevant point of time, the injured was aged about 17 years and, therefore, the claim petition was being preferred by the father of the injured as natural guardian. THE injured was studying in 'Adarsh High School' in Standard-10 (Commerce Stream). On 30th July 1991, the injured left his house at around 11 O'clock on a bicycle for his school. Along with him, his friend named Lokeshkumar Vasantbhai was also riding on the bicycle. As per the case of the injured, he was riding his bicycle at a very low speed on extreme left-hand side of the road. On 30th July 1991, the injured left his house at around 11 O'clock on a bicycle for his school. Along with him, his friend named Lokeshkumar Vasantbhai was also riding on the bicycle. As per the case of the injured, he was riding his bicycle at a very low speed on extreme left-hand side of the road. At that point of time, at around 11:15 hours a bus bearing registration No.GRU-8601 came from behind in full speed and on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus, the bicycle was hit from the rear portion by the bus, as a result of which the injured got flung in the air and fell down on the ground with a very heavy fall. THE injured was shifted to Patan hospital where he was given primary treatment and as he had sustained serious injuries, he was later on shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. (II) MEDICAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD : THE medical evidence on record is to the effect that the injured sustained a very serious injury in his spinal cord resulting in compressed fractures of L1, L2, L4, T12 vertebral bodies with gibbous formation. THE doctor certified the deformity to the extent of 100%. Medical evidence on record suggests that the present case is a case of 100% disablement due to paraplegia, as a result of fractures in L1, L2, L4, T12 of the spinal cord. Medical evidence also reveals that the urethra has been permanently damaged. THE injured has no control over his bowel movements and urine. ( 3. ) THE above-referred medical evidence is corroborated by the oral testimony of PW3 Dr.Gunwantbhai Kantilal Patel at Exh.47 as well as medical certificates at Exh.48 and Exh.51. THE process of determining the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. As rightly pointed out in H.West and Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England) : "...money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered." ( 4. ) HOWEVER, making a monetary assessment of the injury suffered is the only process devised to compensate the victim. As rightly pointed out in H.West and Son Ltd. v. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England) : "...money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered." ( 4. ) HOWEVER, making a monetary assessment of the injury suffered is the only process devised to compensate the victim. The process of making such an assessment, whether in case of death or injury, is provided in Section 168 of the MV Act, which requires that the Tribunals constituted under the Act determine compensation, which appears to be 'just'. Thus, the Act vests a wide discretion upon the Tribunals. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Mahadeva Shetty, 2003 ACJ 1775 (SC), needs mention here (para 15): "It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limb or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales.... The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired....Every method or mode adopted for assessing the compensation has to be considered in the background of 'just' compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression, 'which appears to it to be just', a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done with a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness." ( 5. ) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), posited certain principles to be followed : "...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. 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 the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning; (iii) other material loss. So far 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 the 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 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." ( 6. ) IN a very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011)1 SCC 343 , the Supreme Court has explained the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. General principles relating to compensation in injury cases ( 7. ) THE provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. THE object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. THE court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T.Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 , R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby 1970 AC 467 ). ( 8. ) THE heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). ( 9. ) IN routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. ( 10. ) ASSESSMENT of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. ASSESSMENT of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. ASSESSMENT of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. ASSESSMENT of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability ( 11. ) DISABILITY refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation. ( 12. ) THE percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. ( 12. ) THE percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. THE extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. ( 13. ) WHERE the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. ( 14. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. ( 14. ) WHAT requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567 ). ( 15. ) THEREFORE, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. ( 16. ) IF the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. ( 17. ) ASCERTAINMENT of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. ( 17. ) ASCERTAINMENT of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. ( 18. ) FOR example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. ( 19. ) IT may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may. ( 20. ) THE Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the 'just compensation'. THE Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example, the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. THE Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. ( 21. ) IF a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. IF a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. IF the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage. ( 22. ) THE Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give 'ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. THEre are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. THE Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) THE percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) THE doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. THE loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) THE same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. ( 23. ) WITH these broad principles in mind, we proceed to examine the appellant's claim for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's award is split up as follows :- We now proceed to deal with the amount awarded under each head and examine whether the amount thereby awarded is 'just' as hereunder: Compensation As per Award under challenge (1) Future Loss of Income Rs.2,59,200=00. Income taken Rs.800=00 then added 50% prospective considered, which comes to Rs.1,200=00 x 12 x 18 years multiplier = Rs.2,59,200=00 (2) Medical Expenses Rs.40,000=00 (3) Future Medical Expenses Rs.25,000=00 (4) Special Diet Rs.20,000=00 (5) Attendant Rs.15,000=00 (6) Loss of Amenities (7) Pain, shock and suffering Rs.1,00,000=00 TOTAL AMOUNT : Rs.4,59,200=00 Interest Rate 9% (1) Future Loss of Income : 11. The Tribunal had computed Rs.2,59,200=00 as compensation under this head by taking the income of the injured at Rs.800=00 per month. The Tribunal, thereafter, added 50% of the sum as prospective income, which comes to Rs.1,200=00. The Tribunal gave a multiplier of 18 taking into consideration the age of the injured at the time of the accident, which was 17 years. In this manner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,000=00 towards future loss of income. 12. The Tribunal, thereafter, added 50% of the sum as prospective income, which comes to Rs.1,200=00. The Tribunal gave a multiplier of 18 taking into consideration the age of the injured at the time of the accident, which was 17 years. In this manner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,000=00 towards future loss of income. 12. We are of the view that the income of Rs.800=00 per month which has been assessed by the Tribunal is on a very lower side. We cannot overlook the fact that at the relevant point of time the injured was studying in Standard 10 (Commerce Stream). 13. It appears from the materials on record that the injured could successfully reach up to Standard 10 and, therefore, he had an aptitude for studies and would have studied further. ( 24. ) IN the case of Nizam INstitute of Medical Sciences v.Prasanth S.Dhananka, reported in 2010 ACJ 38 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded Rs.25 lac towards loss of future income to a 28 years old I.T.Engineer, rendered paraplegic as a result of medical negligence in carrying out a surgery. IN paragraph 40 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as under :- "The kind of damage that the complainant has suffered, the expenditure that he has incurred and is likely to incur in the future and the possibility that his rise in his chosen field would now be restricted, are matters which cannot be taken care of under the multiplier method." It is obvious that 'loss of future income' as a head of compensation applies to all persons, whether earning or not at the time of accident. ( 25. ) A young boy who is rendered permanently disabled due to accident loses the capacity to earn for himself and his family, in the same manner as a working adult, and in fact, often loses such capacity for a longer period than such adult. We, therefore, assess the income at Rs.1,500=00 per month and adding 50% (i.e. Rs.750=00) to Rs.1,500=00 would come to Rs.2,250=00 per month. We are of the view that a multiplier of 18 would be an appropriate multiplier in the present case and, therefore, we assess the future loss of income at Rs.4,86,000=00 (Rs.2,250=00 x 12 x 18). We, therefore, assess the income at Rs.1,500=00 per month and adding 50% (i.e. Rs.750=00) to Rs.1,500=00 would come to Rs.2,250=00 per month. We are of the view that a multiplier of 18 would be an appropriate multiplier in the present case and, therefore, we assess the future loss of income at Rs.4,86,000=00 (Rs.2,250=00 x 12 x 18). (2) Medical Expenses :- The medical expenses as claimed in the petition to the tune of Rs.40,000 has been fully awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, this amount is not being disturbed in any manner. (3) Future Medical Expenses :- So far as future medical expenses are concerned, the amount claimed in the petition was to the tune of Rs.2 lac, whereas the Tribunal has thought fit to award Rs.25,000=00. ( 26. ) WE have noticed that the injured as on today is 100% disabled due to paraplegia. He has no control over his bowels or bladder. In such type of cases, treatment like physiotherapy, etc. needs to be given for a very very long period of time. The importance of physiotherapy for persons injured in road accidents has been elaborately stressed upon by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D.Hattangadi (supra). It is hence important to account for all expenses incurred and likely to be incurred and award reasonable sum for each head. It is also important to remember the decreasing money value. The life expectancy of the injured is also to be kept in mind. WE feel that life expectancy of the victim in such a case can reasonably be assumed to be atleast 55 years, given the advancement in medical science, etc. The claimant's age on the date of the accident was 17 years, which means that the remaining period of life expectancy from that date of accident would be 38 years i.e. 1991 to 2029. WE, therefore, propose to assess future medical expenses at about Rs.1,000=00 per month. In that case, the adequate amount which can be awarded for future medical expenses would be Rs.1 lac. WE, therefore, enhance the amount of Rs.25,000=00 awarded towards future medical expenses to Rs.1 lac. (3) Special Diet :- It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that having regard to the nature of injury and the condition of the injured as on today, he would also need special diet. WE, therefore, enhance the amount of Rs.25,000=00 awarded towards future medical expenses to Rs.1 lac. (3) Special Diet :- It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that having regard to the nature of injury and the condition of the injured as on today, he would also need special diet. The claim in the petition under this head was to the tune of Rs.2 lac and the Tribunal has thought fit to award a sum of Rs.20,000=00. WE do not propose to disturb this amount of Rs.20,000=00 awarded by the Tribunal towards special diet. (5) Attendant :- It is clear that the appellant will require an attendant to assist him in his daily activities. However, we cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant who stated that this will require an expenditure of Rs.3,000=00 per month. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000=00, whereas the claim of the claimant is Rs.4 lac. ( 27. ) AS held in the case of R.D.Hattangadi (supra), the Court need not be mathematical in calculating expenses on home attendant but ought to look upon the circumstances prevailing in the society to decide the amount. The Supreme Court in R.D.Hattangadi's case (supra) held 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 is 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 the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (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. 10 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 life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by 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 sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11 In the case Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All ER 563, it was said: "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his "lost years", you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected "years of survival". You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid" He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good for him. Yet Judges and Juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money." In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a 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." 12. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards." 12. The Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T.Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376 , in connection with the Fatal Accidents Act has observed: "In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture to some extent is inevitable." 13. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss at page 446 it has been said :- "Non-pecuniary loss : the pattern : Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual amount of the award. ( 28. ) THE fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassessment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases." We feel that the average cost of keeping a home attendant would be around Rs.1,000=00 per month for the period of life expectancy. Accordingly, the annual expenses on an attendant works out to Rs.12,000=00. We, therefore, propose to enhance the sum awarded for attendant to Rs.1 lac. (6) Loss of Amenities :- ( 29. ) IT appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of Rs.3 lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head 'loss of amenities'. We are of the opinion that this head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused. As per R.D.Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of childhood pleasure such as the ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the loss of ability to freely move or travel without assistance. As per R.D.Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of childhood pleasure such as the ability to freely play, dance, run, etc., the loss of ability to freely move or travel without assistance. Then, there is the virtual impossibility of marriage as well as a complete loss of the ability to have sex and to have and nurture children. ( 30. ) IN the case of the Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and another, reported in 2003 ACJ 1775 (SC), the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 considered the aspects with regard to the loss of marital life and the non-possibility of marriage. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under:- "A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life the features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life has to be reckoned. Coming to the loss of marital life and the non possibility of marriage, the Tribunal had indicated basis for fixing the quantum at Rs.75,000/-. Without any basis being indicated, the High Court fixed at Rs.1.5 lac by referring to the case of R.D.Hattangadi (supra). The special features of that case are non-existent in the case at hand. The injured in that case was an advocate who was married. IN the case at hand the claimant is bachelor. Several other factors were considered in the earlier case to fix the quantum. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is restored." IN the present case, keeping in mind this factor and the age and deprivation of the appellant, we award a sum of Rs.75,000=00 under this head. (7) Pain, shock and suffering :- The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac as against the claim of Rs.4 lac so far as pain, shock and suffering is concerned. ( 31. (7) Pain, shock and suffering :- The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac as against the claim of Rs.4 lac so far as pain, shock and suffering is concerned. ( 31. ) AS regards the enhancement of the amount of Rs.1 lac awarded under the head 'physical pain and mental shock' is concerned, we would like to be guided by the dictum as explained by the Supreme Court in the the case of Mahadeva Shetty (supra). In Mahadeva Shetty's case (supra): "A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life the features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life has to be reckoned." In R.D.Hattangadi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that: "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 and the effect thereof on his future life." ( 32. ) IN the present case, the injured was only 17 years old at the time of the accident. It needs no mention that on account of the accident the injured has lost several pleasures of his childhood and adolescence, including the ability to move, run and play freely as other children do. It is on record that he was studying in Standard 10 (Commerce Stream) and had an aptitude for studies. His condition has confined him to the four walls of the house. Adding to this are the physical and mental suffering caused by his medical condition itself, its treatment and the knowledge that he will never be able to lead a normal life. He has no control over his bowel movements and urinary bladder. Even looking after personal hygiene has also become difficult for the injured. There is also the loss of expectation of life, i.e. the normal lifespan of the person being shortened due to the injury, which causes disappointment and stress. He has no control over his bowel movements and urinary bladder. Even looking after personal hygiene has also become difficult for the injured. There is also the loss of expectation of life, i.e. the normal lifespan of the person being shortened due to the injury, which causes disappointment and stress. As we have discussed earlier that his life expectancy is now 55 years, we must endure this inconvenience, disappointment and suffering for as much as 18 years from now. Keeping in mind the awards under this head to the claimants in the aforementioned cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find it proper to enhance the compensation awarded towards 'physical pain and mental shock', to the appellant to Rs.4 lac. To sum up, the appellant is entitled to compensation as follows : Compensation Amount (Rupees) (1) Future Loss of Income Rs.4,86,000=00 [Income taken Rs.1,500=00 then added 50% prospective considered, which comes to Rs.2,250=00 x 12 x 18 years multiplier]. (2) Medical Expenses 40,000=00 (3) Future Medical Expenses 1,00,000=00 (4) Special Diet 20,000=00 (5) Attendant 1,00,000=00 (6) Loss of Amenities 75,000=00 (7) Pain, shock and suffering 4,00,000=00 TOTAL AMOUNT : 12,21,000=00 Interest Rate 9% per annum ( 33. ) WE, therefore, direct the respondent to pay the appellant the difference in the compensation awarded herein as against the amount of Rs.4,59,200=00 as awarded by the Tribunal. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today, after adjusting the amount already deposited. The rate of interest on this increased amount is to be the same i.e. at the rate of 9% per annum. The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs.