JITHENDRAN versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR on 27 October 2021

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 147

JITHENDRAN

v.

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

(Civil Appeal No. 6494 of 2021)

OCTOBER 27, 2021

[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Compensation – Motor accident –Pillion rider – 21 years old at the time of accident – Earning Rs.4500/- per month – Suffered severe head injuries and totallyimmobilized and initially remained admitted in hospital for 191 days– He also suffered severe impairment of cognitive power withhemiparesis and total aphasia and the prognosis for him was 69%permanent disability – Tribunal determined compensation at Rs.5,74,320 by applying multiplier of 17 – High Court quantified ahigher sum of Rs. 9,38,952/- as compensation, by adding 40% asfuture prospect, Rs.100,000 towards additional medical expensespost hospitalization – In the instant appeal, claimant prayed foradding expenses for services of attendant/bystander on the groundthat he was unable to perform day to day activities and requiresconstant support even for the confined life that he is leading –Held: The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfarelegislation and its provisions make it clear that the compensationshould be justly determined – A person, therefore, is not only to becompensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but alsofor the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability tolead the life he led, prior to the life altering event – In the instantcase, claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and physicalcapabilities would be needing full time assistance even for theconfined life that he is leading – The Presiding Judge in the Tribunalhad also noticed that the claimant would require the assistance of abystander/attendant for all his movements – In view of this, annualexpenses for the attendant is quantified at Rs.60,000/- and withmultiplier of 18, the additional compensation payable under thebystander head would be Rs.10,80,000/- – Further, for a personsuffering severe cognitive impairment and 69% disability, recurringmedical treatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the additionalexpenses already incurred, future medical expenses is enhanced to

147

A

B

CDEF

G

H

ARs.3,00,000/- (from Rs.1,00,000/-) – In so far as claimant’s loss ofearning capacity was concerned, though the physical disability wasassessed at 69%, the functional disability was 100% – In suchcircumstances, his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100% –As his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-, adding 40% future prospectthereto, monthly loss of earning quantified as Rs.6,300/- – Thus,Bcompensation for 100% loss of earning for the claimant would beRs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18) – As regards 6 months earningloss during hospitalization, claimant was awarded Rs.12,000/- forhis hospitalization in the aftermath of the accident – But the lowerfigure did not correctly correspond to six months loss, when theCincome was Rs. 4500/- p.m. – Accordingly, the amount under thishead is corrected as Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 6) – Total compensationof Rs.27,67,800 ordered.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The appellant has suffered 69% permanentDdisability and without assistance, cannot perform everydayfunctions. The claimant with seriously impaired cognitive andphysical capabilities would surely need full time assistance evenfor the confined life that he is leading. In such circumstances, thedisabled claimant cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitousEservices of his well wishers and family members. Importantly,the presiding judge in the Tribunal himself noticed that theclaimant would require the assistance of a bystander/attendantfor all his movements. Consequently, bearing in mind the needfor assisted living it is found necessary to add the expenses forservice of an attendant for the claimant. Since no material isFproduced to quantify the expenses for the attendant, making aconservative estimate, Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be thebare minimum. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quantifythe annual expenses at Rs.60,000/- and applying the multiplier of18, the additional compensation payable under the bystander headGis quantified at Rs.10,80,000/-. [Para 8][154-C-E]

Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413– relied on.

2. The appellant has produced adequate medical documentsbefore the High Court to show the recurring needs for testing,H

treatment and further hospitalisation for which, considerableexpenses were incurred even after the initial 191 days ofhospitalization. As a person suffering severe cognitive impairmentand 69% disability, recurring medical treatment is inevitable andbearing in mind the additional expenses already incurred, it isdeemed appropriate to enhance the future medical expenses toRs.3,00,000/- (from Rs.1,00,000/-), since the sum quantifiedby the High Court appears to be on the lower side. [Para 9][154-F-G]

3. While the permanent disability as certified by the doctorsstands at 69%,the same by no means, adequately reflects thetravails the impaired claimant will have to face all his life. The 21year old’s youthful dreams and future hopes were snuffed out bythe serious accident. The young man’s impaired condition hascertainly impacted his family members. Their resources andstrength are bound to be stressed by the need to provide fulltime care to the claimant. For the appellant to constantly rely onthem for stimulation and support is destined to cause emotional,physical and financial fatigue for all stakeholders. [Para 10][154-G-H; 155-A-B]

4. The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfarelegislation and its provisions make it clear that the compensationshould be justly determined. A person therefore is not only to becompensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but alsofor the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability tolead the life he led, prior to the life altering event. [Para 11][155-B-C, D-E]

Jagdish v. Mohan and others (2018) 4 SCC 57 : [2018]3 SCR 20; Helen C. Rebello and Others v. MaharashtraSRTC and Anr. (1999) 1 SCC 90 : [1998] 1 Suppl.SCR 684 – relied on.

5. The Courts should strive to provide a realisticrecompense having regard to the realities of life, both in termsof assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact includingthe income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similarnature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitivedysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindfulof the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at AB

C

D

E

F

GH

A69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s lossof earning capacity is concerned. The extent of economic lossarising from a disability may not be measured in proportions tothe extent of permanent disability. [Paras 12, 13][155-G;156-A-B]

BChanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda v. DivisionalManager, New India Insurance Company Limited (2020)1 SCC 796 : [2019] 14 SCR 556; Raj Kumar v. AjayKumar and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2011] 1 SCC 343– relied on.

C6. The impact on the earning capacity for the claimant byvirtue of his 69% disability must not be measured as aproportionate loss of his earning capacity. The earning life forthe appellant is over and as such his income loss has to bequantified as 100%. There is no other way to assess the earningloss since the appellant is incapacitated for life and is confined toDhome. In such circumstances, his loss of earning capacity mustbe fixed at 100%. As his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-, adding40% future prospect thereto,the monthly loss of earning isquantified as Rs.6,300/-. Therefore, compensation for 100% lossof earning for the claimant is quantified at Rs.13,60,800/-E(Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18). Accordingly, under this head, the amountawarded by the High Court is enhanced proportionately.[Para 16][159-A-C]

7. The lesser amount for 6 months earning loss duringhospitalization, must also be corrected. The claimant was awardedFRs.12,000/- for his hospitalization in the aftermath of the accident.But the lower figure does not correctly correspond to six monthsloss, when the income was Rs. 4500/- p.m. Accordingly, the amountunder this head is corrected as Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 6).[Para 17][159-D]G8. In cases such as this, the Tribunal and the Courts mustbe conscious of the fact that the permanent disability suffered bythe individual not only impairs his cognitive abilities and hisphysical facilities but there are multiple other non-quantifiableimplications for the victim. The very fact that a healthy personturns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship,H

A

and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer theloss of self-dignity. The efforts must be to substantially amelioratethe misery of the claimant and recognize his actual needs byaccounting for the ground realities. The measures should howeverbe in correct proportion. [Para 19][159-G-H; 160-A-B]

B

Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others(2020) SCC Online 752; Sarla Verma and Others v.Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6494 of2021.

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2018 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA. No.2841 of 2008.

A. Karthik, Sajith P., Advs. for the Appellant.

JPN Shahi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondents.

F

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Karthik, learned counsel for the appellant(claimant). Mr. JPN Shahi, learned counsel appears for the insurancecompany (respondent no1).

G

2. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of a motor accident claimfollowing the serious injuries suffered by the appellant on 13.4.2001 whenthe motor cycle (where the appellant was riding pillion), was hit by a car.Both riders were impacted, resulting in severe head injuries to the H

Aappellant. He was bedridden, totally immobilized and initially, remainedadmitted in the hospital for 191 days. The appellant has also sufferedsevere impairment of cognitive power with hemiparesis and totalaphasiaand the prognosis for him is 69% permanent disability.

3. The claim filed by the pillion riding appellant was analogouslyBconsidered with other claimantsfrom the same accident,by the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as, ‘theTribunal’ for short).The Presiding Officer noticed that the severelyimpaired pillion rider needed support of two persons,holding him fromeither side and because of his diminished cognitive facilities, the claimantappeared to be oblivious to his surroundings before the Tribunal. HeCcould only partially close his mouth and consequently saliva dribbledfrom his mouth. The Tribunal judge noted that the claimant was 21 yearsold and was earning around Rs.4,500/- per month from jewellery workwhen he suffered the accident. Considering these factors and applyingthe multiplier of 17, the payable compensation for the pillion riderwasDdetermined as Rs.5,74,320/- by the Tribunal.

4. Dissatisfied with the awarded sum, the claimant moved theHigh Court of Kerala for higher compensation. With court’s permission,the claimant produced three discharge summaries, 40 medical bills(totalling Rs.68,196/-) and 3 medical reports issued by the hospital whereEthe partially disabled claimant received further treatment.Those wereconsidered together with the fact that Rs. 4,500/- p.m. was the earningof the claimant as a jewellery worker for which, 40% as future prospectneeded to be added.The additional medical expenses incurred for furthertreatment after the initial 191 days of hospitalization was taken intoaccount and,towards future treatment,Rs.1,00,000/- was added. TheFnature of permanent disability of 69% was then factored in underthe relevant head and the High Court quantified a higher sum ofRs.9,38,952/- (instead of Rs.2,81,520/-) as compensation.Thusadditionalcompensation for permanent disability to the tune of Rs.8,57,432/- wasquantified by the High Court, beyond the Rs.5,74,320/- determined byGthe Tribunal for the pillion rider.

5. The chart below would indicate the compensation quantifiedby the Tribunal and the High Court, under different heads:

6. The learned counsel Mr. A. Karthik for the appellant underscoresthat the claimant has suffered 69% permanent disability and is unable toperform everyday activities and he requires constant support even forthe confined life that he is leading. Accordingly earnest plea is made foradding expenses for service of bystander/attendant for the severelyimpaired claimant.

6.1 Since additional recurring medical exigencies are necessitatedand expenses are incurred for regular medical treatment even after theaccident, based upon the bills and hospital documents produced beforethe High Court, the appellant’s counsel argues for substantial enhancementof the sum awarded under the head of future medical expenses.

6.2 Because the appellant’searning capacity is reduced to zero,(notwithstanding his 69% permanent disability), the logic of restrictingthe compensation to 69% under the head of permanent disability isquestioned and Mr. Karthik, the learned counsel submits that the correctfigure should be reached by treating it as 100% loss of future earnings.

6.3 Considering the fact that the injured appellant was hospitalizedfor 191 days and was off work, the lower quantification of his six monthsloss of earning at Rs.12,000/-, when income is accepted as Rs. 4500/-, isquestioned by the appellant’s counsel and he argues that the loss ofearning should be quantified at Rs.27,000/- (instead of Rs.12,000/-,) underthe relevant head.

7. On the other hand, Mr. JPN Shahi, the learned counsel appearingfor the Insurance Company submits that when 69% percent permanentdisability is suffered, the sum quantified by the High Court at 69% level,requires no enhancement.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7.1 It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that the HighCourt has already awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards future medicalexpenses and the appellant is disentitled to claim any further sum on thesaid count.

7.2 Insofar as the claim for expenses for a bystander/attendant,Bthe learned counsel submits that no material is produced by the claimanton the actual expenses incurred for service of attendant and accordinglyit is argued that no further claim is merited under this head.

8. As earlier noted, the appellant has suffered 69% permanentdisability and without assistance, cannot perform everyday functions.CThe claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and physical capabilitieswould surely need full time assistance even for the confined life that heis leading. In such circumstances, the disabled claimant cannot beexpected to rely only upon gratuitous services of his well- wishers andfamily members. Importantly, thepresiding judge in the Tribunal himselfnoticed that the claimant would require the assistance of a bystander/Dattendant for all his movements. Consequently, bearing in mind the needfor assisted living and what was said in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand andOthers[1], it is found necessary to add the expenses for service of anattendant for the claimant. Since no material is produced to quantify theexpenses for the attendant,making a conservative estimate, Rs.5,000/-Eper month appears to be the bare minimum. It is therefore deemedappropriate to quantify the annual expenses at Rs.60,000/- and applyingthe multiplier of 18, the additional compensation payable under thebystander head is quantified at Rs.10,80,000/-.

9. The appellant has produced adequate medical documents beforethe High Court to show the recurring needs for testing, treatment andFfurther hospitalisation for which, considerable expenses were incurredeven after the initial 191 days of hospitalization. As a person sufferingsevere cognitive impairment and 69% disability, recurring medicaltreatment is inevitable and bearing in mind the additional expenses alreadyincurred, we deem it appropriate to enhance the future medical expensesGto Rs.3,00,000/- (from Rs.1,00,000/-), since the sum quantified by theHigh Court appears to be on the lower side.

10. While the permanent disability as certified by the doctors standsat 69%,the same by no means, adequately reflects the travails the impairedclaimant will have to face all his life. The 21 year old’s youthful dreamsH1 (2020) 4 SCC 413

and future hopes were snuffed out by the serious accident. The youngman’s impaired condition has certainly impacted his family members.Their resources and strength are bound to be stressed by the need toprovide full time care to the claimant. For the appellant to constantly relyon them for stimulation and support is destined to cause emotional,physical and financial fatigue for all stakeholders.

11. The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfarelegislation and its provisions make it clear that the compensation shouldbe justly determined. Justice A.P. Misra in Helen C. Rebello and Othersv. Maharashtra SRTC and Anr.[2], held the following on the contours of‘just’ compensation, “The word “just”, as its nomenclature, denotes equitability, fairnessand reasonableness having a large peripheral field. The largenessis, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the conscience whichis fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is termed as unfair,unreasonable, unequitable, not just.”

A person therefore is not only to be compensated for the injurysuffered due to the accident but also for the loss suffered on account ofthe injury and his inability to lead the life he led, prior to the life- alteringevent. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud speaking for a three judges’ bench inJagdish Vs. Mohan and others[3]makes the following relevantobservation on the intrinsic value of human life and dignity that is attemptedto be recognised, through such compensatory awards, “…the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attemptof the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks ofcompensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to questionwhether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it mustprovide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the traumaof suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In adiscourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law.”

12. The Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompensehaving regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of theextent of disabilities and its impact including the income generatingcapacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimantis suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the 2 (1999) 1 SCC 90

3 (2018) 4 SCC 571

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disabilityis assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’sloss of earning capacity is concerned.

13. The extent of economic loss arising from a disability may notbe measured in proportions to the extent of permanent disability. ThisBaspect was noticed in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr.[4], whereJustice R.V. Raveendran made the following apt observations:

“10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a resultof injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head ofloss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impactCof such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunalshould not mechanically apply the percentage of permanentdisability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earningcapacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss,that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from apermanent disability will be different from the percentage ofDpermanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in allcases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disabilitywould result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, andconsequently, if the evidence produced shows 45% as thepermanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of futureEearning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent(percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage)of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or toohigh a compensation.

11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect ofFthe permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of apercentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money,to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standardmultiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We mayhowever note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidenceGand assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of lossof earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, isapproximately the same as the percentage of permanent disabilityin which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentagefor determination of compensation.”

JITHENDRAN V. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

JITHENDRAN V. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR[HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

14. The test for determining the effect of permanent disability onfuture earning capacity involves the following 3 steps as was laid downin Raj Kumar[5]and reiterated by Justice Indu Malhotra in ChanappaNagappa Muchalagoda vs.Divisional Manager, New IndiaInsurance Company Limited[6].

“13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability onthe actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal hasto first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on inspite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as aresult of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awardingcompensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). Thesecond step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature ofwork before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to findout whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning anykind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability,the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities andfunctions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether hewas prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activitiesand functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale ofactivities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continueto earn his livelihood.”

15. The above yardstick to be adopted in such exigencies wasreaffirmed by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. NareshKumar and others[7]. The following was set out by the three Judges’Bench:

“13. The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a 20-year-old data entry operator (who had studied up to 12[th] standard)incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of his right hand (whichwas amputated). The disability was assessed to be 89%. However,the tribunal and the High Court re- assessed the disability to beonly 45%, on the assumption that the assessment for compensationwas to be on a different basis, as the injury entailed loss of onlyone arm. This approach, in the opinion of this court, is completelymechanical and entirely ignores realities. Whilst it is true thatassessment of injury of one limb or to one part may not entail 5 Ibid 6 (2020)1 SCC 796

7 (2020) SCC Online 752

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

permanent injury to the whole body, the inquiry which the courthas to conduct is the resultant loss which the injury entails to theearning or income generating capacity of the claimant. Thus, lossof one leg to someone carrying on a vocation such as driving orsomething that entails walking or constant mobility, results in severeincome generating impairment or its extinguishment altogether.Likewise, for one involved in a job like a carpenter or hairdresser,or machinist, and an experienced one at that, loss of an arm, (moreso a functional arm) leads to near extinction of income generation.If the age of the victim is beyond 40, the scope of rehabilitationtoo diminishes. These individual factors are of crucial importancewhich are to be borne in mind while determining the extent ofpermanent disablement, for the purpose of assessment of loss ofearning capacity.”

“20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic approach,but instead, view the matter taking into account the realities oflife, both in the assessment of the extent of disabilities, andcompensation under various heads. In the present case, the lossof an arm, in the opinion of the court, resulted in severe incomeearning impairment upon the appellant. As a typist/data entryoperator, full functioning of his hands was essential to his livelihood.The extent of his permanent disablement was assessed at 89%;however, the High Court halved it to 45% on an entirely wrongapplication of some ‘proportionate’ principle, which was illogicaland is unsupportable in law. What is to be seen, as emphasized bydecision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the incomegenerating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg orarm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in relation tothe profession, vocation or business of the victim; there cannot bea blind arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overviewof the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparentthat the income generating capacity of the appellant wasundoubtedly severely affected. Maybe, it is not to the extent of89%, given that he still has the use of one arm, is young and asyet, hopefully training (and rehabilitating) himself adequately forsome other calling. Nevertheless, the assessment of disabilitycannot be 45%; it is assessed at 65% in the circumstances of thiscase.”

16. As noted earlier, the impact on the earning capacity for theclaimant by virtue of his 69% disability must not be measured as aproportionate loss of his earning capacity. The earning life for the appellantis over and as such his income loss has to be quantified as 100%. Thereis no other way to assess the earning loss since the appellant isincapacitated for life and is confined to home. In such circumstances,his loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100%.As his monthlyincomewas Rs.4,500/-, adding 40% future prospect thereto,the monthlyloss of earning is quantified as Rs.6,300/-. We therefore deem itappropriate to quantify Rs.13,60,800/- (Rs.6,300 x 12 x 18) ascompensation for 100% loss of earning for the claimant. Accordingly,under this head, the amount awarded by the High Court is enhancedproportionately.

17. The lesser amount for 6 months earning loss duringhospitalization, must also be corrected. The claimant was awardedRs.12,000/- for his hospitalization in the aftermath of the accident. Butthe lower figure does not correctly correspond to six monthsloss, whenthe income was Rs. 4500/- p.m. Accordingly, the amount under thishead is corrected as Rs.27,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 6).

18. Following the above conclusion, additional compensation isfound merited for the appellant and the same is ordered. Thepayableamount under the four specific heads is indicated as under:

The above quantified sum should be paid by the first respondent,within six weeks from today. Any amount paid earlier under these heads,may be adjusted during payment to the appellant. It is ordered accordingly.

19. Before parting, it needs emphasizing that in cases such asthis, the Tribunal and the Courts must be conscious of the fact that thepermanent disability suffered by the individual not only impairs hiscognitive abilities and his physical facilities but there are multiple othernon-quantifiable implications for the victim. The very fact that a healthy A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aperson turns into an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship,and incapable of leading a productive life, makes one suffer the loss ofself-dignity. Such a Claimant must not be viewed as a modern day OliverTwist, having to make entreaties as the boy in the orphanage in CharlesDickens’s classic, “Please Sir, I want some more”. The efforts must beto substantially ameliorate the misery of the claimant and recognize hisBactual needs by accounting for the ground realities. The measures shouldhowever be in correct proportion. As is aptly said by Justice R.VRaveendran, while speaking for the Division Bench in Sarla Verma andOthers Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another[8], justcompensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be justCthat- no less and no more. The plea of the victim suffering from a crueltwist of fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant but is forseeking appropriate recompense to negotiate with the unforeseeable andthe fortuitous twists is his impaired life. Therefore, while the moneyawarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injuredvictim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers theDunease of being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuineattempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding‘just compensation’.20. With the above observation and enhancement of compensation,the claimant’s appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of theEHigh Court stands modified to the extent indicated above. The parties tobear their respective cost.

F

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

G