JUDGMENT/ORDER

J. R. Midha, J.

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 16,93,899/- have been awarded to respondent No. 1.

2. On 15th January, 2011, Master Priyanshu, aged 3 years at that time, was walking on the footpath near his house when he was hit by bus bearing No. UP-12T-3194 driven by respondent No. 2 which resulted in fracture in right shaft of femur of left leg of respondent No. 1. The left leg of respondent No. 1 was amputated. The permanent disability of respondent No. 1 was assessed as 76% in respect of both lower limbs.

3. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,679/- towards expenditure on treatment, Rs. 5,000/- towards expenditure of conveyance, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 25,000/- towards nursing/attendant. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,93,780/- towards cost of the artificial limb. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,22,400/- towards the loss of earning capacity by taking the income of Rs. 2,916. 67 per month, adding 30% towards inflation, applying the multiplier of 18 and taking the loss of earning capacity as 76%. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards disfiguration, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of matrimonial prospects. The total compensation of Rs. 16,93,899/- was awarded by the Claims Tribunal to respondent No. 1.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary heads is on higher side. Reliance is placed on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 AIR(SC) 736. It is further submitted that the functional disability of 76% taken by the Claims Tribunal is on a higher side. It is further submitted that the notional income of Rs. 2,916. 67 per month is on higher side. It is further submitted that future prospects should not be added for computing the loss of earning capacity. It is further submitted that the interest should not have been awarded on the cost of artificial limbs. Law with respect to Grant of Compensation in Injury cases

5. The law with respect to the grant of compensation in injury cases is well-settled. The injured is entitled to pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages also known as special damages are generally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money whereas non-pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages, generally include the expenses incurred by the claimants on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/attending, loss of income, loss of earning capacity and other material loss, which may require any special treatment or aid to the insured for the rest of his life. The general damages or the non-pecuniary loss include the compensation for mental or physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of amenities of life, disfiguration, loss of marriage prospects, loss of expected or earning of life, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life, etc. The above list is not exhaustive and there may be special or additional circumstances depending on the facts in each case.

6. In R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 1 SCC 551, a road accident resulted in 100% disability due to paraplegia below waist to a lawyer (retired Judge). The Supreme Court observed that 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 physi