JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J. 1. This appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed by the minor Sanjoy Acharjee and is directed against the award dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 2,55,000/- along with interest in favour of the claimant and assessed the compensation as follows: The Tribunal, however, held that the claimant was entitled to only 75% of the amount on account of contributory negligence and, thus, awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/-. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petition was filed on the allegation that the petitioner, a minor boy was aged about 5 years at the relevant time. According to the claimant on 12.06.2004 the minor was a student of nursery class. It is alleged that the claimant along with father went towards Battala on the scooter being driven by the father. When the scooter reached near Milan Sangha near Mouchak Club the scooter was stopped since the minor wanted a chocolate. According to the claimant the father brought the scooter to a stationary condition, got down to purchase a chocolate and in the mean time a One Ton truck bearing No. TRP 411 belong to the Home Guard Organization came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter resulting in injuries to the claimant. 2. The stand of the respondent was that it was the driver of the scooter who was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Tribunal held that both the father and the claimant were negligent to the extent of 25% and thereafter assessed the compensation. 3. The mother of the claimant stepped into the witness box and filed an affidavit in support of her claim. She is not a witness to the accident and, therefore, her statement cannot be relied upon as far as the issue of negligence is concerned. However, the claimant also examined one Sri Partha Majumder as PW 2 and he stated that his house is just behind the Mouchak club and when on 12.06.2004 he came out of his house to go to Bishalgarh he found that the scooter was standing on the left side of the Bishalgarh-Agartala road and one child was standing on the scooter. While the witness was waiting for a bus on the opposite side he saw the offending truck coming from the northern side to the southern side at a high speed and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and this the truck hit the scooter and then it dashed with an auto rickshaw. According to this witness the driver of the truck was drunk. In cross examination he reasserted that the truck first hit the scooter and then the auto rickshaw. 4. The opposite side filed an affidavit purportedly of the driver of the vehicle but it was later found that the affidavit had not been sworn by the driver but by an official and, therefore, the said affidavit was expunged from the record. The driver was never produced in evidence. Therefore, we are left only with the statement of PW 2 and in my view the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the father of the claimant had contributed to the accident. The entire fault is that of the driver of the police truck. The respondent is a police department and they could have easily produced the sketch map prepared immediately after the accident but they have not done so. Therefore, adverse inference is drawn against it. In view of the above discussion I am clearly of the opinion that the entire negligence was of the driver of the truck. 5. Coming to the issue of quantum, I may first point out that, I had called the child in Court and on 18.01.2014 the following order was passed: The appellant Master Sanjoy Acharjee has been produced by his parents. I have talked to Sanjoy at length. He appears to be an intelligent young boy. However, he has a speech impediment and cannot speak comfortably. He not only stammers but has to slowly articulate his words. Otherwise he understood all my questions and responded well. On visual examination only I find that his right arm and right leg are disabled to a great extent. Sanjoy has informed me that he cannot play with other children and, therefore, normally stays at home and watches television. He also informed that he has difficulty in chewing food. Otherwise Sanjoy is strong, appears to be healthy but has a piece of his skull removed which makes him susceptible to injuries on the head. Sanjoy has informed me that he cannot play with other children and, therefore, normally stays at home and watches television. He also informed that he has difficulty in chewing food. Otherwise Sanjoy is strong, appears to be healthy but has a piece of his skull removed which makes him susceptible to injuries on the head. Earlier also Sanjoy got treatment at Calcutta because there was no neurologist and neurosurgeon in Agartala. I have been informed at the Bar that even now there is no neurologist or neurosurgeon in Agartala. I have requested learned counsel for the parties to find out whether any neurologist/neurosurgeon is available at Agartala Government Medical College and Hospital, IGM Hospital, B.R. Ambedkar Medical Collage and Hospital, Hapania or at the ILS Hospital at Agartala. The Registrar (Judicial) shall also find out from these hospitals whether facility of neurologist/neurosurgeon is available or not. He shall also get in touch with the Medical Superintendent of all the hospitals and from the ILS hospital he shall specifically find out whether any neurologist or neurosurgeon visits Agartala and if so, who is the neurologist and what is the date of his visit. The State is the respondent in the case and learned counsel Sri D.C. Nath may obtain instructions from the Principal Secretary, Health whether any facilities for treatment of the appellant are available in the State of Tripura. Thereafter, this Court passed the following order on 24.01.2014: In my view, even more important than the award of compensation is the issue of the treatment of the petitioner. From the evidence on record and also as per the statement of the father of the claimant, the treatment at Calcutta was stopped because the claimant's father could not afford to spend any further amount. Here is a case where the claimant suffered an injury in an accident with a vehicle belonging to the State of Tripura. The father of the claimant is also a permanent employee of the State of Tripura but he is not entitled to medical reimbursement. In my view, it is not only the duty of the State but it is also the duty of this Court as the guardian of the minor, to ensure that other than just awarding mere compensation it must be ensured that if possible the boy is treated so that he can fully recover. In my view, it is not only the duty of the State but it is also the duty of this Court as the guardian of the minor, to ensure that other than just awarding mere compensation it must be ensured that if possible the boy is treated so that he can fully recover. It is only the doctors who can tell us whether any further treatment is possible or not. Therefore, I direct that the father of the claimant shall produce the claimant before the neurologist and the neurosurgeon in Agartala Government Medical College and G.B. Pant Hospital on 30.01.2014 at 11.00 a.m. The appellant shall approach the Medical Superintendent of the Agartala Government Medical College and Hospital, Agartala with this order on or before 29.01.2014 who will ensure that the claimant is examined both by the neurologist as well as the neurosurgeon on 30.01.2014. The superintendent shall after examining the claimant send a report to this Court whether there is any chance of further treatment of the claimant and if so, where can such treatment be carried out and what would be the approximate cost of such treatment. The neurosurgeon and neurologist shall also in simple laymen's language set out the disability of the claimant with regard to his day today functions. The claimant did approach the Medical Board but their report is as follows: No. F. 2(27)-Med/Gen/98 Government of Tripura Office of the Medical Superintendent G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala Dated, Agartala, the 1st February, 2014 To The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Tripura Agartala Sir, In pursuance of case No. MAC. App.- 82 of 2007 & Ref Letter No. F. 40(11)-HCT/BENCH/RFA/2014 dt. 27-01-14 I am to lay down the following information in respect of Sri Sanjoy Acharjee for appraisal of Hon'ble High court, Tripura. 1) That, Sri Sanjoy Acharjee, aged 16 years. Was examined by Dr. Prasad Krishnan, Consultant Neurosurgeon & Dr. Sabya Sachi Ojha, Consultant Neurologist on 30.1.14 at Surgical OPD of GBP hospital. 2) The team of Neuro Surgeon & Neurologist has opined that the patient is suffering from right hemi paresis (Partial loss of power on right side) with dysphasia (difficulty in speaking). The team further opined that there is no surgical treatment that can improve the power on right side of patient. The mainstay of treatment is physiotherapy. 2) The team of Neuro Surgeon & Neurologist has opined that the patient is suffering from right hemi paresis (Partial loss of power on right side) with dysphasia (difficulty in speaking). The team further opined that there is no surgical treatment that can improve the power on right side of patient. The mainstay of treatment is physiotherapy. 3) However, the team further opined that for special treatment, the patient can be referred to specialty Institute like AIIMS, New Delhi or NIMHANS, Bangalore. 4) The team also opined that the cost of treatment can not be ascertained as it depends on centre of the treatment. 5) The team also opined that to assess the level of disability patient can be referred to a Disability Board. 6) Physiotheraphy can be done at PMR (Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation) Deptt. Of GBPH which is at free of cost. Enclo: Xerox copy of OPD Ticket duly certified. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Medical Superintendent & Head of Office, AGMC & G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala. 6. This report does not help this Court at all and I am pained to observe that the doctors who should have kept the interest of the patient above all have not treated the case with the seriousness which it deserved. Both the doctors have given no answer to the particular queries raised by the Court and have tried to shift the burden to the hospital, outside the State or the State Medical Board. When the Court directs some official to do a particular act they should have followed the directions of the Court. Instead of following the directions they have virtually abdicated their responsibility and have stated that this work requires to be done by others. This Court expects better co-operation from members of medical fraternity and all I can do is to record my displeasure about the manner in which the report is submitted before the Court. 7. The evidence on record clearly shows that the claimant due to the injuries received in the accident has suffered from hemiparesis (partial paralysis) of the right side of the body with dysphasic (difficulty in speaking) which are totally relatable to the injuries which have been suffered in the accident. 8. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. 8. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential losses such as, (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. The damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. 9. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by him. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. The compensation or damages assessed for the personal injuries should be substantial damages to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by him throughout his life. They should not be just token damages. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote pertinent observations from a few. 10. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H. West & Son Ltd. V. Shephard, 1958-65 ACJ 504 (HL, England), are very pertinent: Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be the endeavor to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards. 11. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All ER 563, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good. 12. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess work and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. 13. In the case of Mediana, (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury held: "Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what is the exact amount of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident. But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that as a topic upon which damages may be given." 14. In Perry v. Cleaver, 1969 ACJ 363 (HL, England), Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest held thus: "To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment." 15. In Phillips versus Western Railway Co., (1874) 4 QBD 406, Field, J., while emphasizing that damages must be full and adequate, held thus: "You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure". The observation of Lord Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing", should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases. 16. McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para. 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: "The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. 16. McGregor on Damages, 14th Edn., para. 1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions states: "The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains which the plaintiff would have made had he not been injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life." 17. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Nirmala Devi, 1980 ACJ 55 (SC), the Apex Court held: "The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales." 18. In R.D. Hattangadi versus Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 ACJ 366 (SC), speaking about the heads of compensation, the Apex Court held thus: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the 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 the 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 shall 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, un 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. 19. In Rajkumar Vs. Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. 6. 19. In Rajkumar Vs. Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Apex Court laid down the heads for which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. 6. 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 inured, 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). 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. 20. Now, I proceed to assess the damages under the different heads,- 1. Non-Pecuniary Damages:- Medical Treatment: Immediately after the accident on 12.06.2004 the petitioner was admitted in the IGM hospital at Agartala. The injury report of the petitioner has been exhibited and it shows that he was unconscious and had received a number of grievous injuries on the skull and on the face. CT Scan of the brain was done which disclosed multiple acute inter cerebral contusions i.e. injuries on the brain. The petitioner was referred to the SSKM hospital, Kolkata from IGM hospital and for purpose of neuro-surgery on 13.04.2004. According to the claimant they could not get admission in the SSKM hospital and, therefore, went to National Neuro Sciences Centre, Kolkata. The claimant was admitted there from 14.06.2004 to 04.07.2004. In the discharge summary issued on 04.07.2004 by the National Neuro Sciences Centre, it is mentioned that he has 60% hemi paresis of the right side and was yet to speak. He was asked to take follow-up treatment after three weeks. The claimant was admitted there from 14.06.2004 to 04.07.2004. In the discharge summary issued on 04.07.2004 by the National Neuro Sciences Centre, it is mentioned that he has 60% hemi paresis of the right side and was yet to speak. He was asked to take follow-up treatment after three weeks. The claimant was re-admitted in the National Neuro Sciences Centre, Kolkata on 04.08.2004 and discharged on 06.08.2004 and there was no improvement in his neurological status at all. Thereafter the claimant was again admitted in the same hospital on 19.08.2004 and discharged on 26.08.2004. It was found that some fluid had collected in the brain and this was aspirated once when the patient was treated as an outpatient. Thereafter the patient was put out antibiotics and, then the fluid was removed under local anesthesia. He was discharged on 26.08.2004, not because he had recovered but because of the fact that due to financial constraints the parents could not keep him in hospital any longer. He was advised to come back again for daily dressing. The young boy still did not improve and on 30.09.2004 he was again admitted in National Neuro Sciences Centre Kolkata and remained there till 11.10.2004. His bone flap had become infected and since the infection could not be controlled the bone flap was removed which means that a portion of the brain of the petitioner has no protection of the skull bone and is only protected by the skin and muscle leaving him susceptible to serious injury in the future if he ever suffers a head injury. The claimant has produced on record the expenses of the treatment at Kolkata and the total expenses at Kolkata work out to Rs. 88,606/-. According to the father he had spent all his money and, therefore, could not afford to get his child treated any longer. This is a case where the father is an employee of Government of Tripura and the son was injured by a truck belonging to the Government of Tripura. The least one would have expected was that the government of Tripura should have shown the grace of giving some ex-gratia grant to the father to meet the expenses of the treatment. This has not been done and ten years later the doctors have prima facie come to the opinion that no further treatment is possible by surgical means. They have only prescribed physiotherapy etc. This has not been done and ten years later the doctors have prima facie come to the opinion that no further treatment is possible by surgical means. They have only prescribed physiotherapy etc. The expenses of Rs. 88,606/- only include the expenses actually incurred by the claimant in National Neuro Sciences Centre. Though the bills of Rs. 88,606/- have been presented, the learned Tribunal held that since the claimant had got treatment in a private hospital he was awarded only Rs. 50,000/- as cost of treatment. It is for the claimant to decide where he has to get the treatment and here the treatment has been taken at National Neuro Sciences Centre. The treatment is not also very expensive. Instead of showing sympathy to a father who had spent all his money and could not get his son treated further because he had run out of money, the learned Tribunal has taken a view that the compensation should be less than the amount actually spent. To say the least, this is a total ridiculous way to look at things. The parents of the petitioner would have incurred a lot of expenses at Agartala and there may be many other expenses for which the claimant may not have kept the bills. Keeping all these factors into consideration, I assess the total expenses on medical treatment alone at Rs. 1,25,000/-. Future Medical Treatment: The claimant have not been awarded any amount whatsoever for future treatment. Even today the doctors are advising that he has to undergo physiotherapy and that he may have to be taken to Bangalore and Delhi for further treatment. Even if the treatment is done in a government hospital expenses on medicines and expenses on transportation have to be borne and, therefore, I award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for future treatment. Attendant Charges: The learned Tribunal while assessing the medical expenses has not at all taken into consideration the attendant charges. The claimant remained under treatment at Agartala and Kolkata right from the date of accident i.e. from 12.06.2004 till 11.10.2004 i.e. for 122 days. His attendants had to go to Kolkata and arrange for accommodation, boarding and lodging at Kolkata. Since he was a small child of 5 years both the parents would have attended throughout these 122 days. Even assuming that the cost of attendant at Kolkata is Rs. His attendants had to go to Kolkata and arrange for accommodation, boarding and lodging at Kolkata. Since he was a small child of 5 years both the parents would have attended throughout these 122 days. Even assuming that the cost of attendant at Kolkata is Rs. 500/- per day, it works out to Rs. 1,000/- per day and the cost of attendants only works out to Rs. 1,22,000/-. Future attendance will also be required and, thereafter, attendant charges are assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. Transportation Charges: The claimant has been awarded only Rs. 40,000/- for the air fare. The tickets on record are for 47,720/- and I fail to understand how the learned Tribunal could have awarded an amount less than the value of the tickets. In addition to the air fare the claimant must have spent money on going by the auto rickshaw, rickshaw or bus from the hospital to their place of stay. Therefore, I award a sum of Rs. 60,000/- on this account. Actual Loss of Income: According to the disablement certificate, the claimant has been disabled to the extent of 60%. The learned Tribunal has held that this disablement is equal to 100% disablement. I am not in agreement with this view of the learned Tribunal. I have talked to the child in my chamber and though I do not profess to be a medical expert, the child as observed was intelligent but his right side was very weak and he had a speech deformity. However, it cannot be said that this child cannot earn at all. Having held so, the manner in which the learned Tribunal has assessed this compensation is totally illegal. This was a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act whereas the Tribunal took the income of the claimant at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and applying a multiplier of 15' assessed the loss of income at Rs. 2,25,000/-. This is totally wrong. In all cases like the present one, one has to assess what amount the claimant would have earned if he had grown up like a normal boy. The claimant is the son of a government servant and one can expect that when he would have grown up he would have reached the same level as his father if not of a higher level. Even a class IV government servant earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The claimant is the son of a government servant and one can expect that when he would have grown up he would have reached the same level as his father if not of a higher level. Even a class IV government servant earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The claimant, if he had studied well could have done better but now he can only look for a job at the lowest level. Therefore, his loss of income has to be assessed keeping in view the income at the lowest level of a government servant i.e. Rs. 10,000/- per month. 50% of this income comes to Rs. 5,000/- per month or Rs. 60,000/- per year and in this case the multiplier would be 18' since the claimant will be without income for the rest of his life and the loss of income works out to Rs. 10,80,000/-. 2. Non-Pecuniary Damages:- Here is a case where a child who was only 5 years old has been permanently maimed for life. He has a very pronounced speech disability and his right side of the body is extremely weak. Even though he may earn something in life, he cannot aspire to attain those levels which he could have done if he not been injured. His pain and agony will continue for rest of his life. Therefore, he is awarded Rs. 1,35,000/- for pain and suffering. The learned Tribunal did not award anything to the claimant for pain and suffering or loss of amenities and future discomfort. The learned Tribunal totally lose sight of the fact that this young boy could not go out and play with his friends. He cannot play like a normal child. He is deprived of the company of young children because this court can take judicial notice of the fact that children look for company of the same type and a normally endowed child will not come and play with a child who is physically handicapped. Even when I talked with the child in my chamber, he stated that most of the time he spends watching cartoons on television. The child when he grows up to become a man will still be dependent upon others. After his parents are gone one does not know who will look after him. Even when I talked with the child in my chamber, he stated that most of the time he spends watching cartoons on television. The child when he grows up to become a man will still be dependent upon others. After his parents are gone one does not know who will look after him. True it is, that this child is not totally dependent and may over a period of time learn to look after himself but the fact remains that he is to a large extent dependent upon others. Therefore, he is awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for future discomfort and loss of amenities in life. Therefore, the total compensation works out to Rs. (1,25,000 + 2,00,000 + 1,50,000 + 60,000 + 10,80,000 + 1,35,000 + 2,50,000) = 20,00,000/-. The award of the learned Tribunal is accordingly modified and is enhanced from Rs. 2,25,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/-. On this amount of Rs. 17,75,000/- the claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit of the amount. 21. The State of Tripura is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of 3(three) months from today. On the amount been deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be released in favour of the father. The rest of the amount shall be kept in a 4(four) separate Fixed Deposits of equal value for a period of 5(five) years at the first instance. The interest accruing on these Fixed Deposits shall be paid on quarterly basis to the father to meet the expenses of the child. In case the father decides to take the child for treatment outside the State and produces evidence with regard to the amount of money required then this Court on an application being moved in this behalf can release a reasonable amount in favour of the father. 22. This court is purposely keeping the amount in a fixed deposit because it is not certain whether this child can earn properly after he grows up and, therefore, he may be dependent on this amount of compensation for a large portion of his life and it would be better that the principal is kept intact and he lives out of the interest in future. The appeal is thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The appeal is thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Send back the LCRs forthwith.