The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for permanent disability, distinguishing between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and considering previous cases with similar injuries.

VERMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation against the order dated 7. 8. 98 passed by Judge, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jaipur, in M. A. C. T. Case no. 657 of 1994 whereby the compensation of Rs. 3,10,000 has been awarded.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the claim application was filed by the claimant, who was only 14 years old when he was hit by the speeding car No. RNI 2400 on 7. 9. 1994. He filed claim application claiming an amount of Rs. 8,42,000. As many as four issues were framed. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,10,000 in toto.

( 3 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that due to the injury sustained by the claimant, his left leg has been amputated at the place of knee in SMS hospital, Jaipur. He sustained 65 per cent permanent disability. He used to go to school by bicycle but now he is to incur additional amount on vehicle for going to school. His marriage prospects are also definitely affected. At the time of accident the claimant was studying in 9th class, but he lost his studies. He cannot play any game now. He will have to walk with artificial leg throughout his life. He would not be able to drive any car or scooter.

( 4 ) FOR determining the quantum of compensation the court has to take into consideration damages 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 and non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate the 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 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 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 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.

( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the claimant had become handicapped to the extent that his left leg had been amputated. Even though no compensation can restore the physical frame of the claimant, but still for the serious and permanent disablement suffered due to accident, some compensation can be awarded but the money cannot equate the human suffering or personal deprivations. The determination of the amount of compensation in the case of accident involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. His settlement in life has seriously been impaired. His disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life is very much great and he will never be in the normal physical frame. In the case of rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Hema, S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 547 of 1996, this court has approved the award of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 as non-pecuniary compensation for the loss of amenities of life, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life in case of amputation of leg. Similar compensation was awarded in case of Ekta Khaitan v. Sita Ram, 2000 ACJ 744 (Rajasthan ).

( 6 ) YET in another case of Shashendra lahiri v. UNICEF 1998 ACJ 859 (SC), for the injuries suffered by claimant of bone fractures which required bone grafting and long treatment at hospital, the honble Supreme Court has awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 with 12 per cent interest.

( 7 ) IN another case of Ashwani Kumar mishra v. P. Muniam Babu, 1999 ACJ 1105 (SC), it was held by th