( 1 ) MR. R. N. Oza the learned Advocate appearing for the appellantclaimant has addressed us in support of his appeal for enhanced compensation. Mr. Oza submitted that on the count of proper damages the appellant was entitled to compensation on four sub-heads:1. Prospective loss of future income;2. Compensation for pain shock and suffering undergone by the claimant;3. Compensation for loss of marriage prospects; and4. Adequate compensation which would take care of increased cost of living with which the appellant will have to undergo for the rest of his life. MR. Oza submitted that the Claims Tribunal has really not applied the correct test for computing the proper compensation. In view of the serious injuries sustained by the appellant both of his legs had been amputated and he is rendered a cripple for the rest of his life Mr. Oza submitted that the proper compensation should be awarded to the claimant on all the aforesaid heads. Mr. S. B. Vakil the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company on the contrary supported the Award of the Claims Tribunal and submitted that it was within the permissible brakets.

( 2 ) NOW in order to appreciate the controversy raised between the parties it would be necessary to keep in view the type of controversy which has arisen before us. The claimant himself is an injured person. He claims compensation on account of the bodily injury received by him which has resulted in amputation of both of his legs. In such cases the proper principles for awarding compensation have now been well settled by this Court. We may refer to the relevant decision on the point in the light of which the present controversy between the parties will have to be resolved by us. In the case of RANJITSINGH GOPALSING and ORS. V. MEENAXIBEN RAJMAL MEHTA REPORTED IN 13 G. L. R. 662. Division Bench of Court observed that it is a settled principle that in disablement cases the compensation awards are always higher than even in cases of death because the compensation has to be given to a living victim both for his personal loss and for the economic loss The principles laid down in such cases can be summarised in three propositions as under:- (1) Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a plaintiff to damages and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury; (2) deprivation may bring with it three consequences loss of earnings or earning capacity expenses of having to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself and loss of enjoyment of life or a dimmunition in full pleasures of living; (3) in considering the deprivation the court should have regard to the gravity and degree of the deprivation that is to say whether one or more limbs has been lest the duration of the deprivation and the degree of awareness of the deprivation. It has been further observed in the aforesaid case that both in England and in this country the settled pattern of awards in personal injury cases is not to award merely token damages but to grant substantial amounts on both the head of personal loss as well as economic loss. Of course in order to avoid any overlapping a global estimate had to be made of the all-told loss. Therefore even though theoratically there can be no real compensation for loss of the right arm the court would have to arrive at a fair social evaluation on the basis of these recognized standards by determining the loss of the injured appellant both on the ground of the economic loss and that her bodily integrity had been affected by this deformity with which she has to go in the society and which she has to endure for the whole life time. It may be stated that the case with which the Division Bench was dealing was the case of a personal injury to a girl who had suffered serious bodily injury on account of the accident. In the light of those facts the Division Bench further observed in the aforesaid decision that besides the loss of l