ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH versus NAMITA SEKHON & ANOTHER on 6 July 2022

ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH

v.

NAMITA SEKHON & ANOTHER

(Civil Appeal No. 4648 of 2022)

JULY 06, 2022

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Injuries causing 100% disability– Determination of just and reasonable compensation – Pecuniarydamages and non-pecuniary damages – Appellant-claimant suffered100% permanent disability in a road accident when he was fiveand half years of age – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal grantedcompensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, High Court enhanced thecompensation to Rs.23,20,000/- – On appeal, held: Taking guidancefrom the judgment of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others reported as[2020] 3 SCR 622 for determination of the compensation in the presentcase, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable – On facts, the amountdetermined for payment of the compensation in pecuniary heads( i.e. the loss of future earning, medical expenses including futuremedical expenses, attendant charges and transportation includingfuture transportation) comes to Rs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniaryheads (mental and physical pain, sufferings present and in future,loss of amenities of life including loss of marital bliss, loss ofexpectancy in life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life etc.) comes toRs.5,00,000/- – Total compensation comes to Rs.51,62,000/- –Enhanced amount of Rs.28,42,000/- to carry interest @ 6.5% p.a.from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Determination of just compensation– Multiplier method – Held: Multiplier method has been recognizedas most realistic and reasonable because it has been decidedlooking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and otherrealistic needs – Thus, for determination of just compensation toensure justice with the family of deceased or the injured as the casemay be the compensation can be determined applying said method– Not only for determination of future loss of earning but forattendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed –

1

A

B

CD

E

FG

H

ATherefore, in the present case, the Tribunal while granting thecompensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 yearsand attendant charges only for 20 years was not justified – Saidamount should be determined applying the multiplier method.

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Determination of –BBasis for, reason for awarding such compensation, applying theuniform methodology comparable to the injuries – EnglishJudgments vis-à-vis Indian Law – Discussed.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Non-pecuniary damages – “pain,shock and suffering” – Multiple factors to be considered from theCdate of accident – Discussed.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The claimant has suffered 100% permanentdisability in a road accident and the liability is joint and several.By making the payment of compensation for damages would notDrevive the claimant into his original position. The compensationtowards wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decidedby the Court but it may be determined as per the recognizedprinciples. [Para 9, 10][9-F; 10-B-C]

Conclusion

1.2 The High Court in the impugned order observed thatEthe claimant has now started practice as an advocate, therefore,future loss of earning has been calculated only for 10 years,applying the multiplier of 16, without looking to the facts thatclaimant cannot perform the work of advocacy similar to the otheradvocates by attending the cases in different Courts. TheFattendant charges have been allowed only for 20 years with oneattendant. In fact, not only for determination of future loss ofearning but for attendant charges also the multiplier methodshould be followed. The multiplier method has been recognizedas most realistic and reasonable because it has been decidedlooking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and otherGrealistic needs. Thus, for determination of just compensation toensure justice with the family of deceased or the injured as thecase may be the compensation can be determined applying saidmethod. Therefore, the Tribunal while granting the compensationof future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and attendantcharges only for 20 years was not justified. In fact, the said amountH

should be determined applying the multiplier method. In thejudgment of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, while replacing theschedule of Motor Vehicle Act, it is not made clear what multiplierwould be applicable below the age of 15. In the case of Kajal, theinjured was 12 years of the age, however, the multiplier of 18 hasbeen applied. Therefore, taking guidance from the judgment ofKajal, for determination of the compensation in the present case,the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. [Para 14, 15][11-G-H; 12-A-E]

Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413: [2020] 3 SCR 622 – relied on.

Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi TransportCorporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5SCR 1098; National Insurance Company Limited v.Pranay Sethi & Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13SCR 100 – referred to.

1.3 In view of the said legal position, the compensation canbe assessed in pecuniary heads i.e. the loss of future earning,medical expenses including future medical expenses, attendantcharges and also in the head of transportation including futuretransportation. In the non--pecuniary heads, the compensationcan be computed for the mental and physical pain and sufferingspresent and in future, loss of amenities of life including loss ofmarital bliss, loss of expectancy in life, inconvenience, hardship,discomfort, disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life etc.Out of the pecuniary heads MACT has not awarded any amountin future loss of earning even having 100% permanent disabilitywhile the High Court granted Rs.6,00,000/- only for 10 yearsbecause the appellant is now practicing as an advocate in theCourt accepting his earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. The fatherof the appellant was a Professor and the mother was an IAS officer.The claimant has been nurtured and brought up in a status enjoyedby his parents. He was planning to become an Executive or IASofficer. On account of the injuries in temporal region and thepermanent disability suffered, he was unable to do his studies asexpected or planned. After sincere efforts he could have passedthe LL. B and started the advocate profession. A judicial noticecan be taken of the fact that for a proficient advocate the person AB

C

D

E

F

GH

AB

C

D

E

F

GH

Amust be physically fit as he is required to move frequently toattend the professional work reaching from one Court to other,and for movements to complete other professional commitments.Looking to the nature of injuries and the permanent disablementwhich the claimant has suffered, i.e., lower limb is completelyparalyzed while his upper limb is partially paralyzed having 100%Bpermanent disability resulting in bodily movements beinghampered. The capacity of the claimant being an advocate cannotbe equated with other practicing advocate having no deformity inthe same profession. The claimant is required to makeextraordinary efforts to attend the proceedings in the Court andCto come up to the expectations of the client. The disablementsuffered to the claimant is for whole life and in the said fact, thefuture loss of earning calculated by the High Court only for 10years is not justified. Accepting the future loss of earningRs.5,000/- per month as decided by the High Court which annuallycomes to Rs.60,000/- and apply the multiplier of 18 as applicableDlooking to the age, then the sum comes to Rs.10,80,000/-, in thesaid head. [Para 16, 17][12-G-H; 13-A-E]

1.4 In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or theHigh Court has not awarded any compensation presumablybecause the mother of the claimant who was minor at the time ofEaccident may have claimed the amount of medical expenses beingan IAS officer. But now the claimant has become major, andlooking to the nature of injuries, future medical expenses thatincludes the attendant charges, use of diapers due to loss ofurination senses is required to be calculated including futureFmedical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,92,000/- in thehead of attendant charges @ 1,000/- per month. While the HighCourt proceeded on the premises that the rate of the attendantcharges is variable after every five years, however, the Courtcalculated the amount @ Rs.2,000/- thereafter @ Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of 20 years and accordingly determinedGRs.9,00,000/- making enhancement of Rs.7,08,000/- in the saidhead. Applying the multiplier method and in view of the judgmentof Kajal, the rate of attendant charges Rs.5000/- per month for12 hours is accepted, looking to the nature of injuries and disabilitythe claimant is required two attendants at least within 24 hoursHthen the expenses in the head of attendant charges comes to Rs.10,000/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 18, the amountcomes to Rs.21,60,000/-. Similarly for medical expenses in thehead of physiotherapy required to the claimant, the Tribunalawarded Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50 per day. The High Court grantedlumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/- including the expenses fordiapers. The said amount is not adequate. In these days thephysiotherapist would charge at least Rs.150/- per day to treatthe patient for one hour which monthly comes to Rs.4,500/- andannually 54,000/-, applying the multiplier of 18, the amount in thehead of physiotherapy charges comes to Rs.9,72,000/-. For thepurpose of use of diapers, regular medical check-up and medicalexpenses if Rs.2,00,000/- is further added then in the head offuture medical expenses the amount comes to Rs.11,72,000/-.Under the head of transportation, the MACT awarded onlyRs.15,000/- for the visit Delhi to Chandigarh which is enhancedby the High Court to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The High Courtfurther awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in the head of motorized wheelchair. During the life span grant of amount for motorized vehicleonly for once is not just. Similarly, in the head of transportation infuture, therefore, the said amount is enhanced in lumpsum toRs.2,50,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.50,000/- as awardedby the High Court. [Paras 18-20][13-E-H; 14-A-E]

1.5 Under the head “non-pecuniary damages”, the claimanthas faced the pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence ofinjuries. To award compensation under the head “pain, shockand suffering”, multiple factors are required to be consideredfrom the date of accident, which include the prolongedhospitalization and regular medical assistance, nature of theinjuries sustained, the operations underwent and the consequentpain, discomfort and suffering. Simultaneously, he has to sufferpost-accident agony for whole life, including the amenities of life,which he can enjoy as a normal man but unable to do so on accountof permanent disability. In the era of competition, he can performbetter as a normal man but is unable to compete with others.Therefore, under the head “pain, shock and suffering”, amountof compensation deserves to be granted. The appellant is entitledfor a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of amenities of lifeand marital bliss, pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment and loss ABC

D

EF

G

H

Aof expectancy, Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the High Court ismaintained in the head of special diet. Thus, in the non-pecuniaryheads, the compensation as determined comes to Rs.5,00,000/-.The amount determined for payment of the compensation inpecuniary heads comes to Rs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniaryheads the sum comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. The total compensationBcomes to Rs.51,62,000/-. The enhanced amount comes toRs.28,42,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6.5%p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.[Para 24, 25][14-E-H; 15-B-D]

R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995)C1 SCC 551 : [1995] 1 SCR 75; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar& Another (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179-relied on.

Jagadish v. Mohan and Others (2018) 4 SCC 571 :[2018] 3 SCR 20 – referred to.DPhilipps v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1879)LR 5 QBD 78 Mediana, In re- 1900 AC 113 (HL); H.West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1964 AC 326; Ward v.James (1966) 1 QB 273 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4648of 2022.G

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2019 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO NO. 4829 of 2002.

Karan Dalal, Harmanjit Singh, Suryavir, Deepkaran Dalal, Advs.for the Appellant.

H

Kailash Prashad Pandey, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.05.2019passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh in First Appeal Order No.4829 of 2002 preferred by theclaimant/appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as “claimant”), wherebythe said appeal was partly allowed and the compensation granted to thetune of Rs.9,00,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh(hereinafter to be referred to as “MACT”) in MACT Case No. 29 of1997 was enhanced to Rs. 23,20,000/-.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “M.V. Act”) asking compensation tothe tune of Rs. 200,000,00/- (two crores only) in various heads on accountof permanent disability caused to him arising out of a road accidentoccurred on 10.11.1996, for which FIR was lodged on 11.11.1996. Atthe time of accident, claimant was five and half years of age and astudent of UKG, suffered multiple injuries like cerebral edema/brainedema, fracture right part of temporal bone, spinal cord, lower limbs,due to which he was having loss of speech, convulsions, injuries on face.The lower limb of claimant was completely paralysed resulted into 100%disability, his hope to live blissful life was lost due to those injuries. It issaid his father was a professor and mother was an IAS officer, theclaimant was having desire to become Executive/IAS officer becauseof his background. On account of head injuries including the fracture intemporal bone, the development and capacity of the brain was notcomparable to a common man. Due to injuries in lower limbs, he lost thesenses for calls of nature and needs all time attendants for his dailyroutine work. He cannot move without wheel chair or motorized vehicle,thus his future is in complete jeopardy.

4. The MACT while deciding the claim petition recorded the findingof joint and several liability and the claimant has suffered 100% disability.The Tribunal calculated the compensation applying the multiplier of 16and awarded Rs.1,92,000/- in the head of attendant charges @Rs.1,000/- per month, for physiotherapy Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50 per day,Rs.15,000/- has been awarded in transportation charges, and BCDEF

GH

ARs.5,000/- for use of diapers in future. The Tribunal grantedRs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of expectations of life, loss of maritalbliss, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, permanent disability, painand sufferings, thus awarded total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofpayment.B

5. The adequacy of the grant of compensation was assailed bythe claimant by filing an appeal before the High Court which was allowedin part vide order dated 21.05.2019. The Court awarded Rs.1,00,000/-for the motorized wheel chair. The future loss of earning is awarded tothe tune of Rs.6,00,000/- accepting the loss of Rs.60,000/- per annumCfor 10 years only. The attendant charges as granted by the claims Tribunalis enhanced to the tune of Rs.7,08,000/- @ Rs.3,500/- per month onlyfor 20 years. In appeal, in the head of medicines, physiotherapy anddiapers the High Court awarded Rs.8,00,000/- in lump sum enhancingthe amount as allowed by MACT. In the head of loss of amenities ofDlife, marital bliss Rs.3,00,000/- was allowed and Rs.1,00,000/- for thespecial diet enhancing the total amount of compensation to the tune ofRs.23,20,000/-. The High Court further directed to pay interest on theenhanced amount @ 7.25% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petitiontill its payment.

E6. By filing this appeal, the inadequacy of grant of compensationby MACT and also by the High Court has been questioned seekingenhancement applying the just and reasonable theory, looking to the natureof permanent disability, the profession which he is doing, in pecuniary aswell as in non-pecuniary heads. It is urged that the compensation grantedby the MACT and the High Court is unjust and unreasonable and notFcommensurate to the nature of injuries, which caused 100% permanentdisability to the claimant. The enhancement has also been prayed onvarious heads and on various grounds.

7. The adequacy of the grant of compensation as allowed waschallenged in the head of future loss of earning suffered due to permanentGdisability for the whole life. It is urged, the loss of future earnings grantedby the High Court @ Rs. 60,000/- p.a. for 10 years only but on accountof the disability caused, the earning of claimant shall affect him for wholelife, that too cannot be comparable to an advocate doing profession havingnormal capacity. The attendant charges @ Rs.3,500/- per month grantedHby the High Court only for 20 years though the appellant required attendant all the time, during lifetime. On account of loss of senses, he isrequired to use diapers for whole life. In the head of future treatment,medical expenses including physiotherapy, the amount as awarded isinadequate. He is required to purchase motorized wheel chair, time totime during his life. In the head of pain and sufferings, loss of maritalbliss, loss of amenities of life, the agony which he shall face before thesociety for whole life the adequate amount of compensation has notbeen granted, however enhancement of compensation is prayed. Insupport of the contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment ofthis Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others - (2020)4 SCC 413.

8. The record indicates that despite service, none present for therespondent No.1. Mr. Kailash Prashad Pandey, advocate is representingrespondent No. 2 – United India Insurance Company Limited and filedthe counter-affidavit, inter alia, contending that both courts have rightlydecided the case on the basis of admitted facts and documentary evidenceon record and the concurrent findings are in favour of respondent No. 2.It is said the judgment passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court inJagadish vs. Mohan and Others - (2018) 4 SCC 571 and the casetitled NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680 decidedby the Constitutional Bench of this Court are supporting the case ofrespondent No.2. It is further submitted that High Court has rightlyfollowed the law laid down by this Court and there is no future scope forenhancement of compensation.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to thefindings recorded by the MACT and High Court, it cannot be doubtedthat the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability in a roadaccident and the liability is joint and several. For the purpose ofunderstanding the nature of injuries and its extent, the statement of PW1-Dr. Sunil Katoch, Consultant, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhiis relevant. As per his testimony, the claimant suffered the spinal injuryat level C-7, C-8 with complete bowel and bladder paralysis and is unableto use his upper limbs (hands) with full strength. MRI suggests extensivemyelomalacia of spinal cord from C-7 to D-4 level, to which optimizedomiciliary care is required. Further, regular and every year check-up isalso required to him. Due to spinal injury, he has suffered completeparalysis of both lower limbs and partial involvement of hands alongwith bowel and bladder. In consequence, he may suffer urinary AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acomplications throughout his life to which adequate medical attention isrequired. He cannot pursue a regular carrier having embarrassingsituation. The percentage of permanent disability is 100%. With the saidmedical opinion and the findings, the issue of adequacy and to grant thejust and reasonable amount of compensation requires consideration.

B10. It is not out of place to state, by making the payment ofcompensation for damages would not revive the claimant into his originalposition. The compensation towards wrongful act in terms of moneythough cannot be decided by the Court but it may be determined as perthe recognized principles. In the said context, some of the Englishjudgments are relevant, which may specify why the compensation beCpaid, what should be the basis for determination and what may be thereason for awarding such compensation, applying the uniformmethodology for determination of compensation, comparable to theinjuries, thereby a person can lead his life, though his physical framecannot be reversed.D

11. In the case of Philipps vs. London & South Western RailwayCo. - (1879) LR 5 QBD 78, it was held that by making a payment ofcompensation for the damages, the Court cannot put back again theclaimant into his original position. On the date of determination of thecompensation, he is being compensated but he cannot sue again, therefore,Ethe compensation must be full and final while determining the same. InMediana, In re - 1900 AC 113 (HL), it is said that the determinationfor an amount of compensation to the damages is an extreme task. Whatmay be adequate amount for a wrongful act and can it be compensatedby money, particularly towards pain and suffering. By an arithmeticalcalculation, it cannot be decided what may be the exact amount of moneyFwhich would represent the pain and suffering to a person, but as perrecognized principles, damages must be paid. In H. West & Son Ltd.vs. Shephard - 1964 AC 326, it was held that payment of compensationin terms of money may be awarded so that something tangible may beprocured to replace something else of the like nature which has beenGdestroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that hasbeen battered and shattered, however the courts must consider to awardsums, which may be a reasonable. Simultaneously, uniformity in thegeneral method of approach is also required. Thereby, possiblecomparable injuries can be compensated by comparable awards. LordDenning, while speaking for the Court of Appeal in Ward vs. James -H

(1966) 1 QB 273 has specified three basic principles i.e. accessibility,uniformity and predictability to be followed in the like cases.

12. In the perspective of Indian law, in the case of R.D.Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. - (1995) 1 SCC 551,this Court has specified that while determining the compensation forphysical injuries, the heads on which the amount of compensation is tobe determined, may be of two types, one is of pecuniary damages andanother is of non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages include theloss of earning, medical attendance, transport charges and other materialloss. The non-pecuniary damages include the expenses for mental andphysical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be sufferedin the future, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life,inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration andmental stress in life which has been followed in the case of Raj Kumarvs. Ajay Kumar and another - (2011) 1 SCC 343.

13. In the case of Kajal (supra), this Court in case of permanentdisability, to decide the just compensation, the principles have beensummarized, whereby the compensation may be awarded in the headsof ‘loss of earning’, ‘medical expenses, transportation, special diet,attendant charges’, ‘loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss ofa particular part of the body’ and ‘loss of future earning capacity’,damages, pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary have to be assessed whileit is impossible to equate human sufferings and personal deprivation withmoney. This Court said attendant charges @ Rs.2,500/- p.m. awardedby the High Court is inadequate, however enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- withtwo attendants, total Rs.10,000/- p.m. for whole life and calculated thecompensation applying the multiplier of 18. The Court further saidcompensation may also be awarded for non-pecuniary damages includingpain, suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects. Therefore,the compensation on account of injuries, causing 100% disability, lookingto the facts of the case at hand, is required to be determined, applyingthe ratio of the said judgment.

14. The High Court in the impugned order observed that theclaimant has now started practice as an advocate, therefore, future lossof earning has been calculated only for 10 years, applying the multiplierof 16, without looking to the facts that claimant cannot perform the workof advocacy similar to the other advocates by attending the cases indifferent Courts. The attendant charges have been allowed only for 20

AB

C

D

EF

GH

Ayears with one attendant. In fact, not only for determination of futureloss of earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method shouldbe followed. The multiplier method has been recognized as most realisticand reasonable because it has been decided looking to the age, inflationrate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs. Thus, for determinationof just compensation to ensure justice with the family of deceased or theBinjured as the case may be the compensation can be determined applyingsaid method. Therefore, in our view the Tribunal while granting thecompensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years andattendant charges only for 20 years was not justified. In fact, the saidamount should be determined applying the multiplier method.C

15. It is also relevant to observe that in the judgment of SarlaVerma (Smt.) & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation andAnother - (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance CompanyLimited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680, whilereplacing the schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, it is not made clear whatDmultiplier would be applicable below the age of 15. In the case of Kajal(supra), the injured was 12 years of the age, however, the multiplier of18 has been applied. Therefore, taking guidance from the judgment ofKajal (supra), for determination of the compensation in the presentcase, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.

E16. In view of the said legal position, the compensation can beassessed in pecuniary heads i.e. the loss of future earning, medicalexpenses including future medical expenses, attendant charges and alsoin the head of transportation including future transportation. In the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation can be computed for the mental andphysical pain and sufferings present and in future, loss of amenities ofFlife including loss of marital bliss, loss of expectancy in life, inconvenience,hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, mental agony in lifeetc.

17. On perusal of the record out of the pecuniary heads MACThas not awarded any amount in future loss of earning even having 100%Gpermanent disability while the High Court granted Rs.6,00,000/- only for10 years because the appellant is now practicing as an advocate in theCourt accepting his earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. From the pleadingsand evidence brought, it is clear that the father of the appellant was aProfessor and the mother was an IAS officer. The claimant has beenHnurtured and brought up in a status enjoyed by his parents. He was planning to become an Executive or IAS officer. On account of theinjuries in temporal region and the permanent disability suffered, he wasunable to do his studies as expected or planned. After sincere efforts hecould have passed the LL. B and started the advocate profession. Ajudicial notice can be taken of the fact that for a proficient advocate theperson must be physically fit as he is required to move frequently toattend the professional work reaching from one Court to other, and formovements to complete other professional commitments. Looking tothe nature of injuries and the permanent disablement which the claimanthas suffered, i.e., lower limb is completely paralyzed while his upperlimb is partially paralyzed having 100% permanent disability resulting inbodily movements being hampered. The capacity of the claimant beingan advocate cannot be equated with other practicing advocate havingno deformity in the same profession. The claimant is required to makeextraordinary efforts to attend the proceedings in the Court and to comeup to the expectations of the client. The disablement suffered to theclaimant is for whole life and in the said fact, in our considered view, thefuture loss of earning calculated by the High Court only for 10 years isnot justified. If we accept the future loss of earning Rs.5,000/- per monthas decided by the High Court which annually comes to Rs.60,000/- andapply the multiplier of 18 as applicable looking to the age, then the sumcomes to Rs.10,80,000/-, in the said head.

18. In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or the HighCourt has not awarded any compensation presumably because the motherof the claimant who was minor at the time of accident may have claimedthe amount of medical expenses being an IAS officer. But now theclaimant has become major, and looking to the nature of injuries, futuremedical expenses that includes the attendant charges, use of diapersdue to loss of urination senses is required to be calculated includingfuture medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,92,000/- in the headof attendant charges @ 1,000/- per month. While the High Courtproceeded on the premises that the rate of the attendant charges isvariable after every five years, however, the Court calculated the amount@ Rs.2,000/- thereafter @ Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of 20years and accordingly determined Rs.9,00,000/- making enhancementof Rs.7,08,000/- in the said head. As discussed, if we apply the multipliermethod and in view of the judgment of Kajal (supra), we accept therate of attendant charges Rs.5000/- per month for 12 hours, looking tothe nature of injuries and disability the claimant is required two attendants ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Aat least within 24 hours then the expenses in the head of attendant chargescomes to Rs.10,000/- per month. If we apply the multiplier of 18, theamount comes to Rs.21,60,000/-.

19. Similarly for medical expenses in the head of physiotherapyrequired to the claimant, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50Bper day. The High Court granted lumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/-including the expenses for diapers. In our considered opinion, the saidamount is not adequate. In these days the physiotherapist would chargeat least Rs.150/- per day to treat the patient for one hour which monthlycomes to Rs.4,500/- and annually 54,000/-, applying the multiplier of 18,the amount in the head of physiotherapy charges comes to Rs.9,72,000/C-. For the purpose of use of diapers, regular medical check-up and medicalexpenses if we further add Rs.2,00,000/- then in the head of futuremedical expenses the amount comes to Rs.11,72,000/-.

20. Under the head of transportation, the MACT awarded onlyRs.15,000/- for the visit Delhi to Chandigarh which is enhanced by theDHigh Court to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The High Court further awardedRs.1,00,000/- in the head of motorized wheel chair. In our opinion, duringthe life span grant of amount for motorized vehicle only for once is notjust. Similarly, in the head of transportation in future, therefore, we enhancethe said amount in lumpsum to Rs.2,50,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,000/- +ERs.50,000/- as awarded by the High Court.

21. Under the head “non-pecuniary damages”, the claimant hasfaced the pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. It isto observe that to award compensation under the head “pain, shock andsuffering”, multiple factors are required to be considered from the dateFof accident, which include the prolonged hospitalization and regularmedical assistance, nature of the injuries sustained, the operationsunderwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering.Simultaneously, he has to suffer post-accident agony for whole life,including the amenities of life, which he can enjoy as a normal man butunable to do so on account of permanent disability. In the era ofGcompetition, he can perform better as a normal man but is unable tocompete with others. Therefore, under the head “pain, shock andsuffering”, amount of compensation deserves to be granted.

22. The MACT awarded Rs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss ofexpectation of life, loss of marital bliss, total loss of enjoyment of life and H

amenities of life, permanent disability, pain and sufferings while the HighCourt granted the same amount bifurcating it in the head of loss ofamenities in life and marital bliss to Rs.3,00,000/- while special dietRs.1,00,000/- making the total Rs.4,00,000/-.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and natureof injuries in our considered opinion, the appellant is entitled for a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of amenities of life and marital bliss,pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment and loss of expectancy, Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the High Court is maintained in the head of special diet.Thus, in the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation as determined comesto Rs.5,00,000/-.

24. In view of the foregoing calculation, the amount determinedfor payment of the compensation in pecuniary heads comes toRs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniary heads the sum comes toRs.5,00,000/-. Thus, in our view, the total compensation comes toRs.51,62,000/-. If we deduct the amount of Rs.23,20,000/- awarded bythe High Court then the enhanced amount comes to Rs.28,42,000/-.

25. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicatedhereinabove. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6.5% p.a.from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

Divya Pandey

Appeal partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H