JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 15/07/2014 passed by the learned single judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s W.P.(C) No. 5574/2008. 2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant at the age of about 20 years, while in active service with Indian Army and posted at 9, Field Ordinance Depot located at Pathankot (Punjab) met with an accident on 20th August, 2004. At that time, he was on leave and while passing a Railway level crossing on a bi-cycle in his native village, suddenly the barrier of the crossing broke down and fell upon him causing serious injuries to his person. In the result, he had to be treated at various hospitals, but due to the injuries sustained by him, he has become paraplegic and his body below the waist is completely numb. The medical certificate (Annexure-A) appended to the writ appeal shows that he would need observation treatment for his whole life. This fact is further supported by letter dated 17th April, 2010 of Colonel, Administration & Officer Commanding Troops. In this letter it is reflected that the appellant is suffering from 100% physical disablement due to the injuries resulting from the said accident. A certificate of ‘Loss of Service’ dated 31/07/2006 (Annexure-K) issued by the Commandant, 9, Field Ordinance Depot also reveals that the accident has made the appellant 100% disabled due to which he has become unfit for Military Service. According to the certificate, the appellant may be invalidated out of Military Service any time, without any pension. And The Indian Army but for interference of the Supreme Court vide order dated 07/11/2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6587/2008 would have removed the appellant from his service. Yet still considering the appellant as liability, the Indian Army has reduced his term of service by 13 years. Ordinarily, the appellant would have retired on 31st March, 2032, the Indian Army has decided to retire him w.e.f. 31st March, 2019. This fact is also obvious from memo dated 17/04/2010 (Annexure-M) issued by the Colonel, Administration & Officer Commanding Troops. 3. Sadly, since the Railway Authorities did not pay any compensation to the appellant, this court, in WP(C) No. 1763/2005 filed by his father Cheniram Gogoi, vide order dated 12/03/2008 directed them to consider his case sympathetically. This fact is also obvious from memo dated 17/04/2010 (Annexure-M) issued by the Colonel, Administration & Officer Commanding Troops. 3. Sadly, since the Railway Authorities did not pay any compensation to the appellant, this court, in WP(C) No. 1763/2005 filed by his father Cheniram Gogoi, vide order dated 12/03/2008 directed them to consider his case sympathetically. The Railway Board then vide memo dated 6.11.2008 sanctioned a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to the appellant and that too, with an unlawful condition that he would not put forth his claim for higher compensation in any court of law. It is true that the appellant has received Rs.4,00,000/-, but being dissatisfied with the amount he filed WP(C) No. 5574/2008 for its enhancement or in the alternative, his wife be appointed on some suitable post by the Railways. But the learned Single Judge did not agree with him and dismissed his writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. In Union of India v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1997) 8 SCC 683 , the Supreme Court has held that a level crossing is on the one hand a danger spot in view of the possible movement of trains, and on the other is an invitation to passers-by. According to the Supreme Court, level crossing is a public crossing and not merely one by private accommodation and therefore, it is the legal duty of the Railway to assure reasonable safety. In the case at hand, the appellant is a victim of negligence of the Railway Authorities and no fault can be attributed to him for the accident as it occurred due to falling of the barrier, which was apparently because of poor maintenance, as well as improper functioning and/or operation of the Railway properties. Had it not been so, Railway Board would not have sanctioned any compensation to him. Also, as a result of the accident, the appellant is suffering from 100% physical disability and his movement has been completely restricted. He has now become wholly dependent on wheel chair. Not only this, his employer is also considering him as liability and looking forward to retire him from service w.e.f. 31st March, 2019 by reducing 13 years of his service. He has now become wholly dependent on wheel chair. Not only this, his employer is also considering him as liability and looking forward to retire him from service w.e.f. 31st March, 2019 by reducing 13 years of his service. He has also been grounded from active military works and has been put to light works. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his legitimate dues in service as well as prospects of life, for which he is entitled for a just and adequate compensation. In these circumstances, to us, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- under no stretch of imagination can be said to be a just and adequate compensation and hence, it deserves to be suitably enhanced. 5. The record reveals that appellant was drawing a gross income of Rs.18,173/- p.m. in the year 2010 and he was to retire from service in the year, 2032. In Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ], the Supreme Court has held that a person who is paid fixed wages is entitled for 30% increase in total income over a period of time, if he becomes victim of accident. The appellant is thus entitled to at least 30% increase towards future prospect. Calculating enhancement of income @ 30% of the total gross income in 13 years taking the aforesaid amount too-although by now it might have increased manifolds-the amount of loss he had to suffer for the said accident is quantified at Rs.36,85,485/- (rounded off) (Rs.18,173 + 18,173 x 30% x 12 x 13 = 36,85,484.4/-). Besides, for pain, mental agony and sufferings, deprivation from conjugal rights, future treatments, nourishing foods and nutrients, travelling expenses for treatment of his person and attendant, loss of amenities in life as well as loss of life expectancy, a special non-pecuniary damage quantified at Rs.3,00,000/- is deemed to be added and as such the appellant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.39,85,485/-. However, as the appellant is still in service and his entire source of income has not been stopped, we deem it fit and proper to deduct ¼th of the said amount for the reason that he would get some benefits on his retirement and hence, the actual sum of compensation is quantified at Rs.29,89,114/- =Rs.30,00,000/- (Rounded off). However, as the appellant is still in service and his entire source of income has not been stopped, we deem it fit and proper to deduct ¼th of the said amount for the reason that he would get some benefits on his retirement and hence, the actual sum of compensation is quantified at Rs.29,89,114/- =Rs.30,00,000/- (Rounded off). Having regard to the pathetic and miserable condition of the appellant, the Railway Authorities, in all fairness, ought to have themselves, volunteered to properly compensate him by granting an adequate compensation and setting an example that the Indian Railways is an important welfare functionary of our great country. But unfortunately the Railway Authorities have shown no apathy to the appellant. We, therefore, direct the respondents to immediately pay Rs.30,00,000/- with 6% interest from the date of accident to the appellant, but not later than 3(three) months from today. Our this direction is in consonance with the principle of equity, fair and good conscience. 6. We also make it clear that the aforesaid compensation is in addition to the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- already sanctioned by the Railways Board and received by the appellant. This we say because the Railways Board did not consider appellant’s loss of future prospects, pain, mental agony and sufferings, deprivation from conjugal rights, cost of future treatments, nourishing foods and nutrients, travelling expenses for treatment as well as loss of life expectancy and loss of amenities in life etc. 7. The impugned order dated 15/07/2014 passed by the learned single judge is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.