United India Ins. Co. Ltd v. Narinder Pal Singh and Ors

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo FAO-1923-2008o(O&M) United India Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs. Narinder Pal Singh and others ......Respondents Narinder Pal Singh ......Appellant Vs. Subash and others ......Respondents Re e!"e#o$%&-o31'10'2025 P!$%$(%)e#o$%&-o21'01'202* Uploaded on: 23.01.2026 Whetheroonlyotheooperativeopartoofotheojudgmentoisopronounced?NO Whetherofullojudgmentoisopronounced? YES CORAM&o HON+B,EoMR-'oJU-TICEo-UDEEPTIo-HARMA Present : Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant (in FAO 1923 2008) for respondent No.3 (in FAO 3500 2008). Mr. M.S.Sachdev, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arsh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant (in FAO 3500 2008) for respondent No.1 (in FAO 1923 2008). **** -o UDEEPTIo-HARMAooJ'o

¶1Vide this common judgment, this Court, shall dispose of FAO 1923 2008 filed by the Insurance Company as well as FAO 3500 2008 filed by the appellant/claimant, as the same have arisen out of the common award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar.

¶2The appeal, i.e. FAO 3500 2008, has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the Award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant in Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 13.10.2002.

¶3The appeal, i.e. FAO 1923 2008, has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the Award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1/claimant was allowed and the appellant Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation to respondent No.1/claimant to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/ along with interest @ 9% per annum. FACT-oNOToINoDI-PUTE

¶4The brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2002 at about 1.30 p.m. claimant along with Shri Vijay Bhushan Mehta was coming from the side of Jyoti Chowk to Skylark Chowk, Jalandhar. Scooter No. PB 08 X 9546 was driven by Shri Vijay Bhushan Mehta, whereas the claimant was sitting on the pillion. When the said scooter reached near Montique Restaurant a Maruti Zen Car bearing No. CH 03 J 0329 driven by respondent no. 1 came from the opposite side with high speed. It was coming on the wrong side and by this it struck into the scooter driven by Vijay Bhushan Mehta and as a result of strong hitting of the right side of the Car with scooter, the claimant and Vijay Bhushan Mehta fell from the scooter. The claimant suffered serious multiple injuries on his head and shoulder.

¶5Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

¶6From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: "1.o WhetheroNarindero aloSinghoclaimantohasosuffered injuriesoinoaomotorovehicleoaccidentocausedo!y Su!ash"o#espondentono.o1o!yodrivingocarono.o$%& '(&)&'(*+orashlyoandonegligentlyoono1(.1'.*''*oin theojurisdictionoofo oliceoStationo,ivisionoNo.o-" )alandhar?oO .o *. Whetherotheoclaimantoisoentitledotoocompensation" ifoso"otoo.hatoamount?oO . (. WhetheroSu!ash"orespondentoNo.o1o.asonotoholding aovalidodrivingolicenceoatotheotimeoofoaccident? O # -.o Who o are o lia!le o to o pay o the o amount o of compensation?oO o arties./ -.-

¶7After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.52,00,000/ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant and the appellant Insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeals. -UBMI--ION-oOFo,EARNEDoCOUN-E,oFORoTHEoPARTIE-

¶8The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends:

(i) that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate and contrary to the evidence on record. It is contended that the appellant/claimant, a practicing advocate, had duly proved his pre accident income through Income Tax Returns, yet his income has been assessed on the lower side, resulting in an erroneous computation of loss of earning capacity.

(ii) that the appellant/claimant was about 26 years of age at the time of the accident and sustained multiple grievous injuries, including fracture of the right clavicle and severe head and brain injuries, leading to complete bilateral hearing loss, permanent neurological impairment, and persistent tinnitus. The appellant/ claimant continues to undergo medical treatment and has not recovered from the effects of the accident.

(iii) that no amount has been awarded towards future medical expenses despite overwhelming medical evidence establishing the necessity of lifelong treatment, further surgical intervention, and continuous medical supervision.

(iv) that the amounts awarded under the heads of attendant charges, loss of marriage prospects, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering, and other non pecuniary damages are grossly inadequate, particularly in view of the 100% permanent disability of the appellant/claimant and complete dependence on attendants.

(v) that as per consistent expert medical opinion on record, the advanced surgical treatment required by the appellant/claimant is not available in India, compelling him to seek treatment abroad, particularly in the United States of America, a factor which has not been adequately considered by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

¶9erocontra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 i.e. driver of Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.CH 03 J 0329. He further contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, he prays that the appealoi.e.oFAO-1923-2008ofiledobyotheoInsuranceoCompanyobeoallowedoand theoappealoi.e.oFAO-3500-2008ofiledobyotheoappellant/claimantobeodismissed.

10.o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedothe wholeorecordoofothisocaseowithotheiroableoassistance.

¶11Beforeoproceedingofurther,oitowouldobeoappositeotooreproduce relevantoportionoofotheoawardodatedo01.05.2008opassedobyotheolearned Tribunal:- "IssueoNo.1.

9.o Theoonusotooproveothisoissueowasoonotheoclaimant. Forothis,otheoclaimantohasoexaminedoShrioVijayoBhushan Mehta.oHeofiledohisoaffidavitoaffirmingotheoaccidentoand statedothatoono13.10.2002oatoabouto1.30op.m.oheoalong withoAdvocateoNarinderoPaloSinghowereogoingoonoscooter no.oPB-08-X-9546ofromoJyotioChowkotooSkylarkoChowk. NarinderoPaloSinghowasosittingoonotheopillionoseat.oWhen theyoreachedonearoMontiqueoRestaurant,oaoMarutioCar No.CH-03-J-329ocameofromotheooppositeosideowithogreat speedoandoitsodriverorashlyoandonegligentlyohitotheir scooter.oResultantly,oNarinderoPaloSinghofellodownoand received o injuries, o which o included o head o injury o and shoulder o bone o injury. o However, o he o was o saved o and receivedominoroinjuries.oAtotheotimeoofoaccident,oblood startedooozingofromotheonoseoandoearsoofoNarinderoPal Singh.oHeowasotakenotooHospital,oJalandharowhereohe wasogivenofirstoaid.oThereafter,odueotoohisodeteriorating condition,oheowasoreferredotooDoabaoHospital,oJalandhar forofurtherotreatment.oTheoaccidentohasotakenoplaceodueoto theorashoandonegligentodrivingoofotheodriveroofotheocar.oo

¶10PW o 2 o is o Chakrawarti. o He o has o also o filed o his affidavitoaffirmingotheodepositionoofoPW1oVijayoBhushan Mehta.oo

¶11PW3oisoPhumanoSinghofatheroofotheoclaimant.oHe hasostatedoinohisoaffidavitothatoheocameotooknoworegarding theofactoofoaccidentofromoShrioM.S.oMultanioonotelephone. Heocameotootheohospital,owhereoheofoundohisosonobleeding profusely.

¶12TheoclaimantohimselfoappearedoasoPW7.oHeofiled hisoaffidavitostatingothatotheoaccidentotookoplaceodueoto theorashoandonegligentodrivingooforespondentono.o1.

¶13Itohasobeenoarguedobyotheolearnedocounseloforothe claimant,oShrioM.S.oSachdev,oAdvocateothatotheoevidence ledobyotheoclaimantogoesotooshowothatotheoaccidentotook placeodueotoorashoandonegligentodrivingooforespondent no.1.oThereoisonoorebuttalotoothisoevidence.oRespondent No.o1ohasoadmittedotheofactumoofoaccidentoinohisowritten statement.oAccordingly,oFIRowasolodgedoinotheoPolice StationoDivisionono.o4,oJalandharohavingono.o291odated

13.10.2002.oSooitoisoclearothatoinotheoabsenceoofoany rebuttaloevidenceotootheopositiveoevidenceoledobyothe claimantothatotheoaccidentotookoplaceoandoitowasodueoto rashoandonegligentodrivingooforespondentono.o1.

14.o Afterogoingothroughotheorecordoandoconsideringothe arguments,oIofindothatothereoisosufficientoevidenceoon recordotooshowothatotheoaccidentotookoplaceobetween scooterono.oPB-08-X-9546odrivenobyoShrioVijayoBhushan Mehta,oAdvocate,owhileotheoclaimantowasosittingoonohis pillionothatoMarutioZenocarobearingono.oCH-034-J-0329. Twooeyeowitnessesohaveobeenoexaminedobyotheoclaimant, whichogoesotooshowothatotheoaccidentotookoplace.oThe factum o of o the o accident o has o also o been o admitted o by respondentono,o1oando2,obutotheonegligenceohasobeen contributedotowardsotheoclaimant.oButoIofindothatoinothe absenceoofopositiveorebuttaloevidence,oitocanobeosafely heldothatotheoaccidentotookoplace,oinowhichotheoFIRowas lodgedoinoPoliceoStationoDivisionoNo.o4,oJalandhar,oin whichoclaimantoNarinderoPaloSinghogototheoheadoand shoulderoboneoinjuriesoandotheoaccidentowasodueotoothe rashoandonegligentoactooforespondentoNo.o1.oAccordingly, thisoissueoisodecidedoinofavouroofotheoclaimantoandoagainst theorespondent. IssueoNo.o3:

15.o Thisoissueohasotoobeodecidedofirst.oTheoonusoto proveothisoissueowasouponotheorespondents.oThereois nothingoonorecordotooshowothatorespondentono.o1owasonot holdingoaovalidolicenceoatotheotimeoofoaccident.oNoneoof theorespondentono.o1oando2ohasocomeotoocontestotheoclaim ofotheoclaimant.oHowever,othereoisodepositionoofoRW1 Surinder o Singh, o Assistant o Manager, o United o India InsuranceoCompanyoexaminedobyorespondentono.o3.oHeoin hisoaffidavitohasostatedothatorespondentono.o1ohasonot steppedointootheowitnessobox,onorohasosubjectedohimselfoto theocrossoexamination.oAllotheoallegationsoofonegligence onohisopartoisowrong.oNeither,otheoownerohasosteppedointo theowitnessobox.oTheorespondentono.o1owasoincompetent, disableoandophysicallyounfitotoodriveotheovehicle.oThe InsuranceoCompanyodoesonotoownotheoresponsibilityoto payotheocompensation.oTheostatusoofotheocriminalocase againstoSubashoisopurposelyokeptoconcealedodueotoothe collusion.oNooaccidentohasotakenoplace.oExceptothis,othere is o not o even o a o single o word o uttered o in o the o affidavit regardingononeoholdingoofodrivingolicenceobyorespondent no.1.

16.o Theolearnedocounselofororespondentono.o1ohas arguedothatorespondentono.o1owasohavingoaovalidodriving licenceoatotheotimeoofoaccident,oasotheoreportoofoDistrict TransportoOfficer,oJalandharoregardingotheoissuanceoand genuinenessoofotheovalidodrivingolicenceoisoonotheofile.oThe respondent o no. o 2 o is o also o not o liable o to o pay o the compensationotootheoclaimantothatotheoaccidentowasodue tootheorashoandonegligentodrivingoofotheoscooterodriver,oas perotheoinformationoreceivedobyoherofromorespondentono.

1.oHeofurtheroarguedothatotheovehicleono.oCH-03-J-0329 standsofullyoinsuredowithorespondentoNo.3.o

¶17Itohasobeenoarguedobyotheolearnedocounselofor respondent o no. o 3, o Shri o R.S. o Arora, o Advocate o that respondentono.1owasonotoholdingoanyolicenceotoodriveothe vehicle.oTheovehicleowasogivenobyorespondentono.2oto respondentono.o1oagainstotheopolicyoofotheoInsurance Company.oSo,otheoInsuranceoCompanyohasonooliabilityoto payo/otheocompensation.

¶18Afterogoingothroughotheorecordoandoconsideringothe arguments,oIofindothatothereoisonothingoonorecordotooshow thatorespondentono.o1owasonotoholdingoanyovalidolicence at o the o time o of o accident. o The o learned o counsel o for respondentono.o1ohasoprovedoonorecordooneoapplication Ex.oRZoalongowithophotoocopyoofotheodrivingolicenceoof respondentoSubashotootheoofficeoofoDistrictoTransport Officer,oJalandhar,oHeomadeohisoendorsementoonothe application o that o driving o licence o no. o 1439/DR/03-04 whichohasobeenoissuedoduplicateoono22.10.2003oinothe nameoofoSubashosonoofoGianoSinghoresidentoofoNAo234 Kishanpura,oJalandharoforoscooteroandocarovalidoupoto

2.4.2015.oTheolastoreplacedonumberoofotheosaidodriving licenceoiso2100/DR/2002-03oasoperoofficeorecord.oThis


 

 

        

 ( '*''*"  

 ?    .   (   ! !    (  6         !             (       0    .      !             .   

 0

   !  



   <   !!   ( ; !      .     

      5"  ! ,0)

 "      .    

      " ;

  . "?    

     

 ! 

    .      

  

    /

¶12A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has correctly returned a finding that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 Subash, the driver of the said vehicle.

¶13The award further demonstrates that the First Information Report pertaining to the accident was lodged promptly on the very date of occurrence, i.e., FIR No. 291 dated 13.10.2002, wherein it was specifically recorded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent driver. The prompt lodging of the FIR lends considerable credence to the version put forth by the appellant/claimant.

¶14Additionally, PW 1 Vijay Bhushan Mehta, eyewitness to the occurrence, categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. His testimony remained consistent, cogent, and unimpeached during cross examination, thereby successfully withstanding the test of credibility. The appellant/claimant himself stepped into the witness box as PW 7 and reaffirmed the factum of negligence attributable to the respondent driver.

¶15It is also evident from the record that the respondents failed to lead any substantive or convincing rebuttal evidence to discredit or demolish the consistent and trustworthy testimony of the eyewitnesses examined by the appellant/claimant. In the absence of such rebuttal evidence, the version advanced by the appellant/claimant stands duly corroborated.

¶16The learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record in its correct perspective and has applied the settled principle of law that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are governed by the standard of proof based on the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. Reference at this stage can be made on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in in A%123o-43!53o"'oNe6oI%#13oA (!3%)eoC$'o,2#'7o2021(1)o-CCo(C!1) .05'ooThe relevant extract of the A%123o-43!538 case (supra) is reproduced as under: **.oE<ually"o.eoareoconcernedooverotheofailureoofothe %igh o $ourt o to o !e o cogni=ant o of o the o fact o that o strict principlesoofoevidenceoandostandardsoofoproofoli;eoinoa criminalotrialoareoinapplicableoinoMACToclaimocases.oThe standard o of o proof o in o such o like o matters o is o one o of preponderance o of o probabilities, o rather o than o beyond reasonableodoubt.oOneoneedsotoobeomindfulothatothe approachoandoroleoofoCourtsowhileoexaminingoevidenceoin accidentoclaimocasesooughtonototoobeotoofindofaultowith non-examination o of o some o best o eyewitnesses, o as o may happenoinoaocriminalotrial;obut,oinsteadoshouldobeoonlyoto analyzeotheomaterialoplacedoonorecordobyotheopartiesoto ascertainowhetherotheoclaimant'soversionoisomoreolikely thanonototrue.oAosomewhatosimilarosituationoaroseoin DulcinaoFernandesov.oJoaquimoXavieroCruzo(2013)o10 SCCo646.owhereinothisoCourtoreiteratedothat: "7.oItowouldohardlyoneedoaomentionothatotheopleaoof negligenceoonotheopartoofotheofirstorespondentowho wasodrivingotheopickupovanoasosetoupobyothe claimants o was o required o to o be o decided o by o the learned o Tribunal o on o the o touchstone o of preponderanceoofoprobabilitiesoandocertainlyonot onotheobasisoofoproofobeyondoreasonableodoubt. (BimlaoDeviov.oHimachaloRTCo[(2009)o13oSCC 530o:o(2009)o5oSCCo(Civ)o189o:o(2010)o1oSCC

(Cri)o1101]) (emphasisosupplied)"

¶17Inoviewoofotheoforegoingodiscussionoandotheosettledolegal position,othisoCourtofindsonooinfirmity,oillegality,ooroperversityoinotheofindings recordedobyotheolearnedoTribunal.oTheoconclusionsodrawnoareosound,owell-reasoned,oandosupportedobyotheoevidenceoonorecord.oConsequently,othe findingsoofotheolearnedoTribunalodoonotocalloforoanyointerferenceoandoare herebyoaffirmed.ooAccordingly,othisoCourtofindsonoomeritoinotheocontentionoof InsuranceoCompanyoregardingotheorashoandonegligentodrivingooforespondent No.1oorooccurrenceoofotheoaccidentotoobeonotoproved.ooTheosaidocontentionois, therefore,orejected.ooAsoaonaturalocorollary,otheoissueoofoliabilityoalsoohasobeen correctlyoappreciatedoandoadjudicatedobyolearnedoTribunal,oandonooinference isowarrantedoonothatocount.ooHence,othisoargumentoalsoostandsorejected. NO? o COMING o TO o THE o DECI-ION o ON o COMPEN-ATION A?ARDEDoBYo,EARNEDoTRIBUNA,oANDoA-oTOo?HETHERoTHE COMPEN-ATIONoHA-oTOoBEoENHANCEDoORoNOT7oA-oPERoTHE ,ATE-To PHY-ICA,@MEDICA,o -TATU-o OFoTHE oAPPE,,ANT@ C,AIMANT

¶18A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the year 2002. Though more than two decades have elapsed since the occurrence of the accident, the appellant/claimant continues to suffer from the debilitating consequences of the injuries till date. The injuries have neither healed nor stabilized, and he remains under continuous medical supervision. Despite having undergone treatment at several hospitals over the years, the appellant/claimant has not attained complete recovery. As per the consistent medical opinion of the treating doctors, the requisite specialized treatment is not available in India and can be effectively undertaken only in the United States of America.

¶19It is pertinent to note that, owing to the progressive nature of his medical condition and the continuing requirement of advanced medical care, the appellant/claimant was constrained to approach this Court by filing application i.e. CM-1*5.-CII-2020 seeking permission to lead additional evidence. By way of the said application, the claimant/appellant sought to place on record voluminous medical documentation to substantiate the assertion that the appellant/claimant requires further specialized treatment, which is available only in America. In the said application, the following order dated 07.02.2020 was passed by Co ordinate Bench of this Court: "Thisoisoanoapplicationoforoleadingoadditional evidence. o The o appellants o by o way o of o the o present applicationoseeksotooexhibitomedicalorecordoinoorderoto proveothatoheorequiresofurtherotreatmentoandotheosaid treatment o is o available o only o in o America. o Since o the documentsoproducedobyohimoareovoluminous,oIodeemoit appropriateotooremitotheomatterotootheoTribunalotoosubmit aoreportoafteroallowingobothotheopartiesotooleadotheir evidence,oinoaccordanceowitholaw.o TheoTribunaloshallogiveoaoreportowithinoaoperiodoof threeomonthsoafteroevaluatingotheoentireooraloasowelloas documentaryoevidenceoledobyotheopartiesoForoawaiting report o of o the o Tribunal, o adjourned o to o 15.05.2020. Photocopyoofothisoorderobeoplacedoonotheoconnectedocase file."

¶20Pursuantothereto,otheolearnedoTribunalosubmittedoitsoreportodated

21.04.2023oafteroevaluatingotheoentireooraloasowelloasodocumentaryoevidence placedoonorecord.ooTheoreportodatedo21.04.2023opassedobyolearnedoMACT, Jalandhar,oisoreproducedoasounder:-o "RespectedoSir, Itoisorespectfullyosubmittedothatoinoreferenceotoothe subjectocitedoabove,oIowasoinoreceiptoofoletteroofothe Hon'bleoHighoCourtobearingono.5157odatedo29.09.2022 alongowithocopyoofoorderodatedo16.09.2022opassedobyothe Hon'ble o Justice o Alka o Sarin o of o Hon'ble o Punjab o & HaryanaoHighoCourt.oInosaidoorder,oreferenceoofoorder datedo07.02.2020opassedoinoCM-1654-CII-2020ohasoalso beenomade. Itoisopertinentotoomentionohereothatoearlieroclaimant filedoaoclaimoapplicationobeforeotheothenoLearnedoMotor AccidentoClaimsoTribunaloono29.04.2004,owhichowas decidedoinohisofavourovideoawardodatedo01.05.2008.oThe InsuranceoCompanyoassailedotheosaidoawardovideoFAO No.1923oofo2008oandodissatisfiedowithotheocompensation andotheoclaimantoalsooapproachedotheoHon'bleoPunjabo& HaryanaoHighoCourtovideoFAOoNo.o3500oofo2008.oInothe saidoappeal,otheoclaimantofiledoanoapplicationoforoleading additional o evidence o his o recurring o and o continuously treatmentoafteropassingotheoawardotillodateovideowhichohe soughtotooexhibitomedicalorecordoinoorderotooproveothatohe requiresofurtherotreatmentoandotheosaidotreatmentois availableoonlyoinoAmerica.oSinceotheodocumentsoproduced byohimowereovoluminous,osootheomatterowasoremittedoback toothisoTribunalotoosubmitoaoreportoafteroallowingobothothe partiesotooleadotheiroevidence,oinoaccordanceowitholaw.

¶1Firstoofoall,oinocomplianceoofotheosaidoorders, presentocaseowasotreatedoasoCiviloMiscowhichoisobearing CM/450/2022 o & o thereafter, o on o the o basis o of o the application o moved o by o the o learned o Counsel o for o the claimant/injured, o a o request o letter o was o made o to o the Hon'bleoHighoCourtofororequisitioningoofotheooriginal medicalorecordoappendedowithoFAOoNo.3500oofo2008, whichowasoreceivedoinothisocourtoono23.02.2023,oOn receiptoofotheosaidorecord,otheopartiesowereocalledotoolead theiroevidence.

¶2Inohisoevidence,oclaimantoNarinderoPaloSinghohas examinedohimselfoasoPW7.oHeoalsooexaminedoSomoRajoas PW9 o and o exhibited o the o following o documents o in o his evidence:o Ex.P-544 MRIoReportoofoInneroear Ex.P-545 SuperoScanningoReport Ex.P-546 OpinionoofoDr.oShamitoChoprao Ex.P-547 OpinionoofoDr.KuldeepoSingh Ex.P-548 OpinionoofoDr.S.K.Bansal Ex.P-549 OpinionoofoDr.MandeepoSingho Ex.oP-550 OpinionoofoDr.AnuragoArorao Ex.P-551otooEx.P-561 OpinionoofoDroHarinderoSingh onodifferentodates Ex.P-562o OpinionoofoDr.NehaoSinglao Ex.P-563 OpinionoofoDr.RamanoGuptao Ex.P-564 CertificateoissuedobyoDr.GurwinderoS.Bansal Ex.P-565 AffidavitogivenobyoSomoRajo(PW9)o Ex.P-566otooEx.P-574 Reportso&otestsoofoapplicant Ex.P-575otooEx.P-577 CopiesoofoAppointmentsogiven byoCleveland Clinic Ex.P-578otooEx.P-586 CopiesoofoIncomeoTaxoReturns Ex.P-587 CopyoofoPANoCardoofoapplicant Ex.P-588otooEx.P-1064 Subsequentoprescriptionsoissued byovariousodoctorsoallooveroIndia,omedicalobills,oreceipts &omedicaloreportsoregardingovariousotests. Ex.P-1065 ReportoofoMRIodatedo25.08.2021 Ex.oP-1066 ReportoofoMRIodatedo14.08.2019 Ex.P-1067 OpinionoofoDr.TusharoArora,oM.S.Mch Ex.P-1068 OpinionoofoDr.AkshataoDesai,oMBBS,oMD

(USA) Ex.P-1069 OpinionoofoDr.KaranbiroSingh,oMBBS,oMD

(USA) Ex.P-1070 Prescriptionoofodoctor Ex.P-1071 Evaluationoreportodatedo13.10.2020 Ex.P-1072otooEx.P-1546 Medical o bills, o prescription, opinionoofovariousodoctorsoallooveroIndia,oMRIoreports, otheroinvestigationoreportsoandotheirobills Ex.P-1547 Documentsopertainingotootheoappointment fromoMayooClinic,oUSA Ex.P-1548 Copy o of o death o certificate o of o mother o of applicant Ex.P-1549 Disabilityocertificateodatedo25.11.2022. Ex.P-1550 OpinionsoofoProfessoro&oHeadoofotheoENT Deptt,oPIMS,oJalandhar. Ex.P-1551otooEx.P-1695 Prescriptions o of o various doctors,oMedicalobills,oreportsoofovariousotestso&oopinion ofovariousodoctorsoalongowithocertificateoU/so65-Boof IndianoEvidenceoAct. Ex.P-1696 CertifiedocopiesoofoDr.Col.HarinderoSingh, CommandoHospital,oChandioMandir,oChandigarh. Ex.P-1697 Certified o statement o of o Dr.Pankaj o Trivedi, NeurooSurgeon. Ex.P-1698 Reportodatedo10.12.2022oissuedobyoKrishna PathoLab Ex.P-1699 X-rayoreport Ex.P-1700 DigitaloX-rayoreport Ex.P-1701 DigitaloX-rayoreport Ex.P-1702 OPDoslipodatedo11.03.2022 Ex.P-1703 CopyoofoI.T.Roacknowledgmentoforo2021-22 Ex.P-1704otooEx.P-1706 MedicineoBills

¶3On o the o other o hand, o the o respondent o Insurance Company o examined o RW-2 o Dinesh o Kumar o Deputy Manager, o Raksha o Health o Insurance o TPAo Pvt.Ltd. o & tenderedotheofollowingodocuments: Ex.RW2/ Emailodatedo11.04.2023 Ex.RW2/ Scheduleoofocharges Ex.RW2/ PricingoGuidelineso2020-21 Ex.RW2/ PackagesoTariff Ex.oRW2/ CertificateoU/so65-BoofoIndianoEvidenceoAct.

¶4Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoand haveogoneothroughotheorecordocarefully.

¶5TheoclaimantoNarinderoPaloSinghometowithoaoroad accidentoono13.10.2002oandosustainedoseriousoinjuriesoon hisoheadoandoshoulderoandootheropartsoofotheobody,oasois evidentofromotheoawardodatedo01.05.2008.ooTheoclaimant filedoaoclaimoapplicationobeforeotheothenoLearnedoMotor AccidentoClaimsoTribunaloono29.04.2004,owhichowas decidedoinohisofavourovideoawardodatedo01.05.2008.oThe insuranceocompanyoassailedotheosaidoawardovideoFAOoNo. 1923oofo2008oandodissatisfiedowithotheocompensation,othe claimantoapproachedotheoHon'bleoPunjabo&oHaryana HighoCourtovideoFAOoNo.o3500oofo2008oandotheoclaimant filedoanoapplicationoforoleadingoadditionaloevidenceohis recurringoandocontinuouslyotreatmentoafteropassingothe awardotillodateovideowhichoheosoughtotooexhibitomedical record o in o order o to o prove o that o he o requires o further treatmentoandotheosaidotreatmentoisoavailableoonlyoin America.oSinceotheodocumentsoproducedobyohimowere voluminous,osootheomatterowasoremittedobackotoothis Tribunalotoosubmitoaoreportoafteroallowingobothothe partiesotooleadotheiroevidence,oinoaccordanceowitholaw.

¶6Inothisoevidence,oclaimantoNarinderoPaloSinghovide hisoaffidavitoEx.oPW7/A/1oinitiallyostatedoaboutotheofacts ofotheocaseoandoalsooaboutohisoincapacityotoocarryoonoany workoasoanooffshootoofotheoheadoinjuriesoandoother injuriesoonohisoentireobody,osustainedoinotheoroadoaccident and o produced o several o hundreds o of o documents. o His attendant/caretakeroPW-9oSomoRajohasobeenoexamined who o stated o that o he o is o working o as o full o time attendant/caretakerowithotheoclaimantosinceo26.10.2002 and o also o deposed o about o his o monthly o salary o of o Rs. 12,000/-oP.Mosinceo2010oplusofreeoaccommodationoand threeotimesofood.oHeoalsooextensivelyodeposedoaboutothe conditionoofotheoclaimantoincludingovisitsotoodoctorsoand medicalotreatmentoandomedicationobeingoprovidedotoothe claimantoonodailyoandoregularobasis. It o is o pertinent o to o mention o that o counsel o for claimant o /injured o categorically o submitted o that o the medicaloconditionoofoclaimant/injuredoisoworseningowith eachopassingodayoandobeingochronicallyobedoridden,ohe was o not o in o a o position o to o collect o all o the o medical bills/boardingoandolodgingobillsoorotransportationobills pertainingotoohisocontinuousomedicalotreatmentofrom doctorsoallooveroIndia,otheooverallomedicaloexpensesofar exceedsotheobillocollectedoandoproducedoonorecord.oThe billsoshownoinoevidenceoareolessoasocomparedotoothe actualoexpensesoincurredobyotheoclaimant.oTheocounselofor theoclaimantovehementlyoalsoosubmittedothatohisofinancial conditionoisoveryocriticaloandoclaimantoisounderoheavy debtoandoafteropassingoofotheoaward,otheoclaimantoduring cross-examinationohadostatedothatoheogotoaoloanoofoRs.o50 lakhofromodifferentopersonsotoomeetotheoexpenditureohis treatment.oo The o medical o & o incidental o expenditure o provedo on recordobyoclaimant:

¶7In o the o present o proceedings, o the o claimant o has broughtoonorecordooriginalobillsoquaotheomedicaloand some o conveyance o expenditure o to o the o tune o of o Rs. 22,17,844/-,owhichopertainotootheoperiodoafterotheopassing of o the o award o dated o 01.05.2008, o till o today. o These expendituresoareoinoadditionotoothoseoalreadyoproducedoon recordoinotheoclaimopetition.oTheodocumentsohaveobeen producedoinooriginaloandonoorebuttaloevidenceohasobeen ledobyotheorespondentoinsuranceocompanyotoodenyothe genuinenessoofotheseodocuments.oAlthoughotheoLearned Counsel o for o the o respondent o insurance o company o has hammeredoheavilyoonotheopointothatotheomedicalobillsoare exaggeratedoandoareoevenoforgedoandofabricated.oHeohas furtherostressedothatotheoissuingoauthorityoofotheobills showingoexpenditureohaveonotobeenoexaminedobyothe claimantointentionallyoandoasosuch,oadverseoinferenceois liableotoobeodrawn.oHoweverotheosaidoargumentoisowithout anyomerits.oTheoissueoregardingotheoproofoofomedical expenditureoisonoolongerores-integra.oStrictoproofoofothe medicaloexpenditureoisonotorequiredoandomereoexhibition ofotheobillsoisosufficientotoodrawotheoconclusionothatothis amountoisospentobyotheoclaimantoonohisotreatment.oThe proceedingsounderoMotoroVehiclesoActoareosummaryoand strictoproofoofoevidence,oasorequiredoinocriminalolaw,ois not o applicable o to o the o summary o proceedings. o The respondent o insurance o company, o despite o availing o a number o of o effective o opportunities, o did o not o lead o any evidenceotoodepictothatoanyoofotheobilloisonotogenuineoand has o been o fabricated o and o on o this o ground, o adverse inferenceoisoliableotoodrawnoagainstothem.oAsosuch,othe claimantohasobeenoableotooproveohisomedicaloandosome conveyanceoexpenditureotootheotuneoofoRs.22,17,844/-.oAt theosameotime,osomeoofotheobillsohaveobeenotenderedotwice, whichohaveobeenodulyotakenonoteoofoandotheosecondocopy hasobeenonotootakenointooconsideration,owhileoarrivingoat theototaloexpenditureoofoRs.22,17,844/-. Medicalo&ophysicaloconditionoofoclaimant:

¶8Comingotootheonextopointoforodetermination,owhich isotheomedicaloandophysicaloconditionoofotheoclaimant, regardingowhichoseveralodocumentsohaveobeenobroughtoon record.oBeforeoanalyzingotheodocumentsoandoevidenceoled onorecord,othisoCourtofirstowishesotootakeonoteoofoits observationoregardingotheoconditionoofotheoclaimant, whenoheowasobroughtobeforeothisoCourtoatotheotimeoofohis evidence. o When o the o claimant o Narinder o Pal o Singh examinedohimselfoasoPW7,oduringohisocrossoexamination, this o Court o noticed o that o while o he o was o being o cross examined,otheoclaimantoexpressedohisoinabilityotoohear andoheorequestedoforotheoquestionsotoobeogivenoinowriting. However,owithotheohelpoofotheoLearnedoCounseloforothe claimant,otheoquestionsowereoaskedoloudlyoandoinowriting tootheowitness.ooThisoobservationowasoevenorecordedoinothe evidenceoofotheowitnessorecordedoono21.03.2023.oSinceohis evidenceowasonotoconcludedoonotheosaidoday,owhenothe witnessoagainoappearedoonotheonextodayoi.e.o22.03.2023, feelingotheohelplessnessoofotheoclaimantoandotheomanner inowhichotheoquestionowereobeingoaskedoloudlyoandoin written o form, o this o Court o had o appointed o Local Commissionerotoorecordotheoevidenceoofotheowitness.

¶9Nowocomingotootheoevidenceoledoregardingothe conditionoofotheopatient.oTheoclaimantohasobroughtoon recordooriginalocertificateoEx.oP-1067oissuedobyoDr. Tushar o Arora, o M.S. o Ch. o (Neurosurgery), o Senior Consultant o Neurosurgeon, o Shrimann o Superspeciality Hospital, o Jalandhar o who o gave o his o opinion o that o the claimantoNarinderoPaloSinghoisosufferingofromosevere bilateralotinnitusowithobilateralohearingolossowithoright th thsidedo7 o-o8 onerveocomplexovascularoconflict,odepression, headache,oinsomniaoandodiabetes,oheohadofurtherostated thatotheoclaimantohasoconsultedovariousoNeurosurgeonsoin Indiaoandohasogotonooreliefoinohisosymptoms.oAnother certificateoEx.P-1068oissuedobyoDr.oAkshataoDesai,oMBBS MD(USA) o DM o eq(USA), o Endocrinologist o and Diabetologist, o Apex o Hospital, o Jalandhar o has o been broughtoonorecord,ovideowhichotheodoctorohasoopinedothat theoclaimantohasobeenosufferingofromodiabetesotypeoII tinnitus,overtigoofromomanyoyearsosinceoheometowithoa roadotrafficoaccident,owhichocompletelyodisruptsosleep andohasohadoaonegativeoimpactoonohisobloodosugar,oblood pressure,oweightoandooverallohealth.oOnotheosimilarolines isotheocertificateoissuedobyoDr.oKaranbiroSingh,oMBBS MD(USA) o DM o (USA), o Consultant o Neurologist, o Apex Hospital,oJalandharowhichohasobeenobroughtoonorecordoas Ex. o P-1069. o The o said o doctor o has o treated o upon o the claimant,owhereinotheooccipitalonerveoi.e.ofirstonerveoof theobrain oofo theoclaimantowasoblockedobyoinjecting injectionsoinobrainoandotheoprescriptionoinothisoregardsoin Ex.P-1070.oThereoisoalsooaohearingoevaluationoreport issuedobyoPIMER,oChandigarhoas oEx.P-1071,o which depictsothatoclaimantoNarinderoPaloSinghoisosuffering fromocompleteohearingolossofromobothoears.oTheoclaimant hasoalsoobroughtohisopermanentodisabilityocertificateoas Ex.oP-1549,ovideowhichotheoclaimantoNarinderoPaloSingh hasobeenocertifiedotoobeo100%opermanentlyodisabled, beingosufferingofromohearingoimpairmentoandotheosaid disabilityohasobeenoassessedoinotheomonthoofoNovember, 2022. o Ex. o P-1550 o is o the o certificate o issued o by o the ProfessoroandoHeadoofoENToDepartment,oPunjaboInstitute ofoMedicaloSciencesoHospital,oJalandhar,ovideowhichoit hasobeenocertifiedothatobothotheoearsoofopatientoNarinder PaloSinghohaveobeenorenderedodeadoandoheocannotohear from o both o his o ears. o He o has o further o mentioned o that th thclaimant's o 7 o - o 8 o nerve o of o the o brain o have o been permanentlyodamagedoandotheoclaimantoNarinderoPal Singhoisosufferingofromosevereoinsomnia,odepression, vertigo,oheadacheoandoisohighlyodiabetic.oApartofromothe certificates,oseveralohundredsoofomedicalorecordoinothe shapeoofoOPDoslipsocumoprescriptionsoslipsoshowingovisit and o consultation o to o the o doctors o of o the o above o said hospitalsohaveobeenobroughtoonorecordobyotheoclaimant,oto proveothatotheoclaimantohadoinofactobeenovisitingoand consultingotheodoctors,oissuingotheocertificates.oTheosaid conditionoofotheoclaimantoNarinderoPaloSinghoisoalso evidentofromocopyoofoaffidavitoofoDr.oCol.oHarinderoSingh, HeadoofoENToDepartment,oCommandoHospital,oChandi Mandir,oChandigarhoasoEx.oP-1696oandocopyoofoaffidavit of o Dr. o Pankaj o Trivedi, o Brain o and o Spine o Surgeon, JalandharoasoEx.oP-1697,owhichopertainotootheiroevidence recordedoduringotheopendencyoofotheoclaimoapplication averringothatomedicalotreatmentoisoavailableoandopossible fromoUSAoclaimantoinjuredorequiresoadvanceotreatmentoof brainoandoearsowhichoisonotopossibleoinoIndia.

10.o Althoughotheomedicalorecordohasobeenoassailedoby the o Learned o Counsel o for o the o respondent o insurance companyoonotheogroundsothatotheomedicaloevidenceoin shapeoofostatementoinotheoCourtoofodoctors,oissuingothe certificatesoisomissingoinotheopresentocaseoasotheoclaimant has o failed o to o examine o the o doctor o issuing o the o said certificates,obutotoomyomind,omerelyobecauseotheoclaimant hasonotoexaminedotheodoctors,oitodoesonotoipsoofacto establishothatotheomedicalorecordoareonotogenuine.oThe certificates o issued o by o the o doctors o have o been o duly corroboratedowithotheoOPDoandoprescriptionoslipsoofothe doctorsowhichohaveobeenoproducedoonorecordoandoruns intoohundredsoofopageonumbers.oAlso,otheocertificates haveoissuedobyodoctorsoofoleadingohospitalsoi.e.oPIMER, Chandigarh, o PIMS o Hospital, o Jalandhar, o Shrimann Hospital, o Apex o Hospital o who o possess o high o medical qualifications,odulyocorroboratedobyoevidenceoofotreating doctor o of o Command o Hospital, o Chandi o Mandir, Chandigarh,oDr.oCol.oHarinderoSingh,owhoowasoexamined duringotheopendencyoofoclaimoapplication.o oThus,oitois fullyoevidentothatotheoclaimantohasolostohearingoinobothohis earsoandoisosufferingofromotinnitusoinobrainoandobothoinner ears, o vertigo, o headache, o insomnia o and o depression, diabetesoetc.ocausingoadverseoeffectoonotheohealthoofothe claimant.

¶11Asopero"NewoConciseoMedicaloDictionary"oby Guptao&oGupta,o"Tinnitusoisoringing,obuzzing,owhistling, hissingoorootheronoiseoheardoinosilentoenvironment.oThere isosomeoelementoofohearingoloss.ooToleranceoofotinnitus variesoconsiderablyofromooneopersonotooanother.oSome mayofindoitomostountolerable.oItoisoanounformedoauditory hallucinationsoofosound.oItoisousuallyoofowhistlingoor pulsating o nature o accompanied o with o sensorineural deafness.oTinnitusomayobeoassociatedowithodepression. Pharmacologicalotreatmentoisoineffective".oTheoclaimant is o constantly o facing o problem o on o which o there o is o a continuousoringingovoicesoinohisobrainoandobothoinner years.oThisoCourtocanowelloimagineotheoapathyoand sufferingoofotheoclaimant,owhichoheoisosufferingosinceothe dateoofoaccidentoi.e.o13.10.2002.oThereoareonoowordsoeven toodescribeotheosufferingoandomeasureoisoimmeasurable. The o claimant o has o consulted o a o number o of o doctors including o Neurologists o and o Otologists o in o Jalandhar, Durgapur o (West o Bengal), o Ludhiana o and o Mumbai, howeverohasofoundonoosolaceoandoreliefotoohisosuffering and o complications. o The o entire o medical o evidence o is consistentowithotheofactothatodueotootinnitusoinohisobrain andobothoinneroyears,otheoclaimantoisosufferingofrom insomnia,odepression,overtigo,ohighobloodosugarolevel, highobloodopressure.oThusoitoisoevidentothat,odueotoothe constantosoundoinohisobrainoandobothoinneroears,othe claimantoisounableotoosleepowholeonightoandodayowhichois requiredoforoaohealthyohuman.ooTheoconstantobuzzingoin ears,osoundowouldonotoletotheoclaimantosleepostraightofor evenofiveominutes,oasorightlyostatedobyotheoclaimantoinohis affidavitoEx.oPW-7/A/1.

¶12PW-9oSomoRajohasobeenoexaminedowhoohasostated regardingohisojoboasoanoattendant/caretakerowithothe claimantosinceo2002oandohisosalaryoofoRs.o12,000/-oper month.oThereoisonooescapeofromotheoconclusionothatothe condition o of o the o patient o requires o him o to o engage attendant/caretakeroforohisodayotoodayoactivities.oThe doctors o have o even o mentioned o about o the o need o of attendant/caretakeroinotheirocertificatesoEx.oP-1067oand Ex.P-1068.oEvenootherwise,otheoconditionoofotheopatient itselfodepictotheoneedoofoattendant/caretaker.oTheonameoof SomoRajoevenofindsomentionedoinosomeoofotheorecordsoof the o transportation o expenditure, o wherein o the o said attendant/caretaker o Som o Raj o is o depicted o to o be accompanyingotheoclaimantotooMumbaioandoDelhioforothe doctorovisit.oItowillonotobeooutoofoplaceotoomentionohere thatodueotoocompleteohearingolossowithoconstantoringing soundoinohisobrainoandobothoinneroears,otheoclaimantowill notobeoableotoocarryooutohisodailyoscheduleoandohisohigh bloodosugaroleveloandootheromedicalorequirementsofor daily o survival o necessitate o his o engaging o an attendant/caretaker,oratherohisoconditionodepictothatohe wouldobeodependentoonotwooattendant/caretakeroasoit cannotobeoexpectedofromooneosingleohumanotoolookoafter theoclaimantoroundotheoclockoforo24ohours.oAlthough salaryoofoRs.o12,000/-ohasobeenoallegedotoobeopaidotoothe attendant/caretaker,obutotheosaidopleaoisowithoutoany proof.oButoatotheosameotime,osalaryooughtoandomustohave beenopaidotootheoattendant/caretakeroSomoRajosoonoafter accident,oevenotillotoday.oMoreover,oservicesoofotheofamily members,owhichoareonotodepictedoinoevidence,ocannotobe ignored o as o already o stated o above, o one o single attendant/caretakerocannotolookoafterotheoclaimant.

¶13Asoregardsotheofutureomedicalotreatmentotowards purchaseoofomedicinesoandootheromedicaloexpenditure,othe claimantoinohisoaffidavitohasoclaimedoheoisounderoconstant medication.oSeveralodocumentsohaveobeenobroughtoon recordodepictingotheoconditionoofotheoclaimant.oItois evidentothatodueotoomultipleoheadoinjuriesosustainedoinothe roadoaccidentohisohearingohasobeenolostofromobothothe ears o and o constant o ringing o and o buzzing o sound o is appearingoinotheoears/brainoofotheoclaimantoandoan offshootohisobothoearsopermanentlyodeadoandohisoseventh andoeightsonervesoofotheobrainoareopermanentlyodamaged afterotheoaccident,oheohasobecomeohighlyodiabetic,oandois suffering o from o insomnia, o depression, o vertigo o and headacheoandosoomanyoproblemsoareocreatingodayobyoday. Theoclaimantoisounderodailyorequirementoofomedicinesofor hisoupkeepoandoasomentionedobyotheoDr.oAkshtaoDesaioin certificateoEx.oP-1068,oheoisorequiringomoreothano160 unitsoofoinsulinowitho4ooraloagentsotoopreventoglycemic spikes.oTheoclaimantowillohaveotoospendoregularomonthly expenditure o on o his o upkeep o and o prevent o further complicationsotooarise.

¶14CertificateoEx.P-543oissuedobyoDr.oKuldeepoSingh, OrthopedicoSurgeon,ohasobeenobroughtoonorecordovide whichotheoclaimantohasobeenoadvisedomajorosurgeryofor non-unionorightosideoclavicleoboneowithoplatingoandobone graftingoandoclaimantoisohisoaffidavitohasoalsooclaimed amountoforotheosaidosurgery.oClaimantohasoalsooclaimed chargesotoobeoincurredoonodentaloimplantotowardsoimplant ofoteeth,olostoduringotheocourseoofoaccident.oEx.P-1584ois the o Dental o OPD o slip o of o the o claimant o issued o on

09.11.2022,ovideowhichotheoMedicaloOfficeroofoDental departmentoofoDistrictoHospital,oJalandharohasoadvised theoclaimantoDentaloimplantowithoFPDo(FixedoPartial Denture)oforotheomissingoteethotoogetobalancedoocclusion. RequirementoofoMedicaloTreatmentoinoU.S.A:

¶15Nowocomingotootheonextocontentionoofotheoclaimant thatoheorequiresoaomedicalotreatment,owhichoisoonly availableoinoUSA.oTheoclaimantoinothisocaseohasobrought onorecordocopyoofoaffidavitoofoDr.oCol.oHarinderoSingh, HeadoofoENToDepartment,oCommandoHospital,oChandi Mandir,oChandigarhoasoEx.P-1696,owhoowasoexamined duringotheopendencyoofotheoclaimoapplicationoasoPW-10. HisoevidenceoinotheoshapeoofoaffidavitoEx.PW10/Aodepicts thatotheosaidodoctorohasostatedothatotheodoctorsoat CommandoHospitaloareoofotheoviewothatobrain/ohead injuriesosustainedobyoNarinderoPaloSingh,odueotoowhich thereohasobeenopermanentoechoooozingooutoofotheobrain, theopresentocaseoinohandoisoaocaseoofomajoroheadosurgery toobeooperatedouponobyoleadingoneurosurgeonoasotheoear andobrainonerveoareointerconnectedotooeachootheroleaving permanentoimpactoonotheobrainoandoearsoofoNarinderoPal Singh.oHeohasofurtheroopinedothatotheosurgeryoinosuchoa complicatedocaseoshouldobeogotodoneoinoabroadowhichois veryocostly.oTheoclaimantohasofurtherobroughtoonorecord copyoofoaffidavitoofoDr.oPankajoTrivedi,oBrainoandoSpine Surgeon,oJalandharoasoEx.oP-1697,owhoowasoexamined duringotheopendencyoofotheoclaimoapplicationoasoPW-11. HisoevidenceoinotheoshapeoofoaffidavitoEx.oPW11/Aodepicts thatodoctorohasostatedoaboutotheoconditionoofotheoclaimant andohasostatedothatodespiteobestotreatmentogivenobyohim, theopatientoNarinderoPaloSinghohasonotobeenoableoto recoveroandoheoalwaysocomplainoofoechoooozingooutothe rightosideoofotheobrainoroundotheoclockoasowelloas sleepless o night. o He o has o further o opined o that o patient NarinderoPaloSinghorequiresoNeuroobrainosurgery,owhich isoaoveryoadvancedotreatmentoavailableoonlyoabroadoin selectedocountriesolikeoUSA,oCanadaoandoisoalsoovery expensive. o The o claimant o have o brought o on o record o a certificateoissuedobyoDr.oShamitoChopra,oDepartment HeadoandoNeckoSurgery,oPateloHospital,oJalandharoasoEx. P-546,owhoohasomentionedothatotheopatientoNarinderoPal Singhohasobeenousingohearingoaidsoandotinnitusomasker sinceo15oyears,obutotheopatientohasonotoimprovedoandothe patientowillogetobenefitowithosurgicalointerventionoandothe patientorequiresobilateralocochlearoimplantationoandopost operativeoauditoryorehabilitationoandoitsotentativeocostois Rs.35,00,000/-.oDr.oHarinderoSinghoProfessoroandoHOD, DepartmentoofoENT,oNarayanaoMultispecialityoHospital, DurgapurohasocertifiedothatotheopatientoNarinderoPal Singhogetobenefitofromocochlearoimplantoinobothoearsoand itsoapproximateocostoofoRs.o35,00,000/-.oEx.oP-1067oisothe certificateoissuedobyoDr.oTusharoArora,oSenioroConsultant Neurosurgeon,owhoohasostatedothatotheopatientoNarinder PaloSinghorequiredourgentoadvanceotreatmentoforohisohead andoearoinjuriesofromoUSAoandoDr.oAkshataoDeasioofoApex HospitalovideoherocertificateoEx.oP-1068ohasocertifiedothat patientoNarinderoPaloSinghoisoinoseriousoneedoofohelpofor tinnitusoandovertigo.oOnotheosimilarolinesoisotheocertificate Ex.oP-1069oissuedobyoDr.oKaranbiroSinghoConsultant (Neurology) o who o has o certified o that o the o despite consultationsowithoseveralodoctorsoinoIndia,otheopatient NarinderoPaloSinghohasominimalotoonooreliefoandoheohas severeosystemsoaffectingohisodayotoodayolivingoandomay benefitofromourgentotreatmentofromoabroad.oHenceoitois evidentofromotheorecordothatoconsideringotheonatureoof injuriesoandocomplicationsobeingofacedobyotheoclaimant, hisofurtherotreatmentoinotheoshapeoofosurgeryoandoimplants isorequiredoandoasoperotheoopinionoofotheodoctors,otheosaid treatment o can o only o be o done o by o top o Neurosurgeon. ProfessoroandoHeadoofoENToDepartment,oPIMSoHospital, Jalandhar,ohasoalsoocertifiedothatopatientoNarinderoPal Singhorequiresourgentoadvancedotreatmentoforohisohead andoearoinjuriesofromoUSAobyosurgicalooperation,ovideohis certificateoEx.P-1550.oHenceoitoisoevidentofromotheorecord thatoconsideringotheonatureoofoinjuriesoandocomplications beingofacedobyotheoclaimant,ohisofurtherotreatmentoinothe shapeoofosurgeryoandoimplantsoisorequiredoandoasoperothe opinionoofotheodoctors,otheosaidotreatmentocanoonlyobe doneobyotopoNeurosurgeon.oEvenootherwise,oasotheorecord speaks,otheoclaimantohasoalreadyoconsultedoaonumberoof NeurologistsoandoOtologistsoinodifferentohospitalsoandoin differentopartsoofotheocountry,ohoweverohisoconditionohas notoyetoimprovedoandothereoappearsotoobeonooendotoohis suffering,ounlessogivenoanoadvancedotreatment.

¶16The o claimant o has o also o brought o on o record, appointments,osoughtobyohimoatoMayooClinic,oMinnesota, United o States o of o America o for o his o assessment o and treatment.oEx.P-1547oisotheodetailedorecordoregardingothe appointmentsosoughtobyotheoclaimantofromotimeotootime. InitiallyoinotheomonthoofoDecember,o2019oandoJanuary, 2020,otheoclaimantohasosoughtoappointmentsoatotheosaid clinicoandothereafter,oagainoinotheomonthoofoFebruary, 2020 o and o March, o 2020, o the o claimant o had o sought appointment.oAgainoinotheomonthoofoAugust,o2022,othe appointmentsosoughtoandofinallyoinotheomonthoofoOctober, 2022oappointmentsoresoughtobyotheoclaimant.oHowever, theoclaimantocouldonotoattendotheoappointmentsoatothe Clinic,odueotoopaucityoofofundsoandounavailabilityoto arrangeoforohugeoexpenditure.ooTheoclaimantohasofurther broughtoonorecordotheoestimateoexpenditureoissuedobyothe MayooClinicoforocochlearoimplantoandoforobrainolesion removal,owhichorelatesotootheonerveodamageoofotheobrain, asocertifiedobyotheotreatingodoctor.oForotheocochlear implant o surgery o with o estimate o of o appointment, o an estimateoofoUSDo$o7903ohasobeenogivenoforoappointments andosurgeryoanoestimateoofoUSo$o1,02,197ohasobeenogiven. The o said o estimate o has o been o given o by o the o Finance SpecialistoofotheoMayooClinicoatoUSA.oForotheobrain lesionoremovalosurgeryoanoestimatedototalocostoofo$ 66,635otoo$o1,46,600ohasobeenogivenoandoestimated averageototalocostoofo$o1,08,950ohasobeenogivenovide estimateono.o500758.oTheosaidoestimatesoareoattachedoat pageo49otoo51oofoEx.P-1547.oAlthoughotheosaidodocuments haveobeenoinoemailoprintoutoform,obutotheyoareoduly supportedobyotheoaffidavitoU/so65-BoofoIndianoEvidence ActofiledobyotheowifeoofotheoclaimantoRupinderoKaurovide Ex.P-1675. o On o the o other o hand, o except o giving o mere suggestionsoregardingotheogenuinenessoofotheodocuments produced,onoocontraryoevidenceohasobeenoledobyothe respondent o insurance o company. o The o respondent insuranceocompanyodidonotoexamineoanyowitnessotooput forth o its o own o estimate o regarding o the o estimated expenditureoofotheotreatmentoofotheoclaimant.oNoocontrary estimateohasoevenobeenoproducedoonorecordosooasotoorebut theoestimateoproducedobyotheoclaimant.ooAllotheomedical recordsoshowsothatopresentlyoheoisounderovariousodoctors alloIndiaounderotreatmentosinceotheodateoofoaccidentotootill date.

¶17Apartofromoallotheoevidenceodiscussedoabove,othe claimantohasobroughtoonorecordoaocertificateoEx.oP-564 issuedobyoDr.oGurvinderoSinghoBansal,oB.P.T.,oBansal Physiotherapy o Centre, o Bhogpur, o Jalandhar o who o has certifiedothatotheoclaimantoNarinderoPaloSinghoisogetting physiotherapyotreatmentofromohimosinceoJanuary,o2012 andoheochargesoaosumoofoRs.o500/-operovisitoandoonoan average,othereoareoalmosto15/20ovisitsoinoaomonth.oHeohas furtherocertifiedothatotheoclaimantorequiresophysiotherapy treatment o in o future o also. o Considering o the o nature o of injuriesoandotheoinabilityoofotheoclaimantotoocarryoonohis dailyoroutineoandoevenotootakeosoundorest,otheoclaimant hasosufferedoinsomnia,odepressionoandoheomustohaveoto remainorestlessothroughoutotheoday.oHenceotheoneedoof physiotherapy o treatment o for o keeping o his o body o in o a workingoconditionoappearsotoobeoaojustified.oTheolearned counseloforotheoclaimantosubmittedothatotreatmentoofothe injuredoclaimantoisoalreadyoveryomuchodelayedoforotheolast 20oyears,oheowentotoomoreothano100ohospitalsoalloover India,obutocouldonotogetoreliefokeepingoinoviewoofohis healthoconditionoclaimantoinjuredoimmediatelyoneedoof advanceotreatmentoofomedicaloscience.

¶18BothoCochlearoimplantsosurgeriesoareotoobeodone alongowithobrainosurgeryoareotoobeodoneofromotheobest NeurooSurgeonowithoadvancedomedicaloscienceobecause brainoandoearsonervesoareointeroconnectedowithoeach otheroandoallotheseosurgeriesorelatingowithotheobrainoand theseothreeosurgeriesoareotoobeodoneosimultaneouslyoin orderotoosafeoguardotheolifeoandofutureoofotheodeponent. ApartofromothisothereoisoaorightoCollaroboneosurgeryoisoto beodoneoando14oteethoimplantosurgeriesoareotoobeodone andoclaimantoinjuredohasotootakeodiabeticotreatment throughoutolife.

¶19AllotheootherodocumentsoareoinoshapeoofoOPDoand prescriptionoslipsoofotheoabove-mentionedodoctorsoand hospitals,omedicalotestoreportsoetc,owhichohaveobeenodealt above.

¶20Theorespondent'soInsuranceoCompanyoinorebuttal hasoexaminedoRW-2oSh.DineshoKumar,oDeputyoManager RakhshaoHealthoInsuranceoTPAoPrivateoLimitedoFeroz GandhioMarket,oLudhianaohasostatedothatoheohasodirect ineractionoinodifferentohospitalsoinoIndia.oTheofacilityoof brainolesionosurgeryoandocochlearoimplantoisowidely availableoinodifferentohospitalsoinoIndiaoandosomeoofothose hospitalsoareoIndraprasth,oApollooHospital,oNewoDelhi, Fortis o Hospital o Ltd.Gurgaon, o Max o Superspecialty Hospital,oNewoDelhi.oInohisocross-examination,oheohas deposedothatoheohasonooideaoasotooinowhichopart/portionoof theobrain,otheopartoknownoasobrainolesionoisolocated. Beforeomakingostatementoinotheocourt,oheodidonotogo throughomedicalorecordoofoclaimantoasotoowhatosortoof injuryohadoreceivedobyohimoinotheomotoroaccident.oHeohas nooideaoasotoowhetherotheobrainoisodividedointoofour differentoportions.oHeohasofurtherodeposedothatoheodidonot knowoifotheobrainoinoaohumanobodyoisotheonerveocenter.oHe didonotoknowoifoanyonerveoeminatingofromotheobrainois damaged,othatopartoofotheobodyobecomesodeadowhichois connectedotootheobrainothroughothatoparticularlyonerve. Heohasonooideaoinotheocaseoofoclaimant,ohiso7tho&o8th nerves o coming o from o brain, o had o been o permanently damaged. o In o his o examination-in-chief, o he o failed o to produceocostoofosurgeryoforotheorepairoofo7tho&o8thonerves knownoasocarinialonerve.oHeohasoonlyoproducedoschedule listoofotheochargesoofohospitaloavailableowithohim.oHeohas notoproducedoanyorecordotooshowothatoanyohospitaloin Indiaoisocapableotooperformojointosurgeryoofobrainolesion andocochlearoimplansoatooneoandosameotime.oHeodidonot knowoifoanyotreatmentotoocureotheoproblemoofopresent claimantoisoavailableoinoIndiaooronot.oHeohasomade statementoonlyoonotheobasisoofoexpenditureolistoavailable inotheirohospital.

¶21Itoisopertinentotoomentionohereothatotheotreatmentoin respectoofowhichotheoclaimantoaoseekingocompensation fromotheoInsuranceoCompanyoisoavailableoinoIndiaoandoto proveotheocostoofosuchotreatment,oheohasoalsooplacedoon recordotheolistoofoexpenditureoreceivedobyohisocompany fromovariousohospitals.oThéosaidostatementomadeoby DineshoKumaroisoliableotoobeodiscardedoforotheosimple reasonowhenoheoisoinocross-examinedostatedothatothe claimantoisorequiredotooundergoosurgeryoatooneoofothe sameotimeoforohisobrainoasowelloasoforotheoimplantoofothe cochlearoinobothoofohisoears,obutotheowitnessofailedoto bringoonorecordoanyoevidenceotooshowothatotheosaid surgeryocanobeoperformedoinoanyohospitaloinoIndiaoand -3.- similarlyoheofailedotoostateoasotoo.hato.ouldo!eotheocostoof theoaforesaidosurgeryoi.e.otheosurgeriesotootheo!rainoofothe claimantoandotheoimplantoofotheocochlearoofo!othotheoears atooneoofotheosameotime"otherefore"ofromotheoevidence"oit cannoto!eoconcludedothatotreatmentoforotheopro!lemofaced !yotheoclaimant"oisoavaila!leo ino?ndiaothereforeothe statementoofotheoclaimantocannoto!eodiscardedo.henohe statedothatotreatmentoforohisopro!lemoisoavaila!leoinoAS6" especiallyo.henohisostatementoisocorro!oratedo!yothe opinionoofotheodoctorso.hooe2aminedohimoduringohis treatment. %ence o my o report o is o su!mitted o for o your o ;ind perusal./ o

¶21This Court now proceeds to examine and decide the enhancement of compensation in view of the above referred to report dated

21.04.2023.

¶22A perusal of the record as well as latest report dated 21.04.2023 shows that the claimant/appellant has endured prolonged physical pain, mental agony, and financial hardship for over two decades. The appellant/claimant seeks enhancement of compensation not as a matter of largesse, but as a rightful claim grounded in law, equity, and compassion, so as to enable him to secure necessary medical treatment and to live the remainder of his life with dignity in the face of permanent and continuing disability.

¶23A careful perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was aged about 26 years at the time of the accident and was a practicing advocate by profession. The evidence on record further indicates that prior to the accident, the appellant/claimant was regularly filing income tax returns, reflecting a monthly income of ₹25,000/ , as duly noticed by the learned Tribunal.

¶24It is also borne out from the record that subsequent to the accident, the appellant/claimant has filed income tax returns showing nil income. The said circumstance clearly establishes that owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant/claimant has been rendered incapable of pursuing his professional work. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant/claimant has any alternative source of livelihood post accident.

¶25Having regard to the age of the appellant/claimant, the nature of his profession, the permanent impact of the injuries on his earning capacity, and the fact that but for the accident he would have continued to earn and progressively enhanced his income, this Court is of the considered view that strict adherence to post accident income figures would result in grave injustice.

¶26It is well settled that strict proof of income is not always possible in the case of self employed persons, and the Tribunal/Court is required to adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while assessing income, keeping in view the nature of occupation, surrounding circumstances, and prevailing economic realities.

¶27In this context, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C43%#!353%1oN3%#3oF 'o-3!32oC43%#!3 Swainoandoanother,o2024oINSCo777.ooTheorelevantoextractoofotheosameois reproducedoasounder:-

13.o Forotheopurposeoofoclarification,otheoHighoCourt enhancedotheocompensationotooRs.30,99,873ofromoRs. 20,60,385oasoawardedobyoTribunal.oThisowasodoneoby consideringotheofunctionalodisabilityoato100%oasoopposed too60%,oasoassessedobyotheoTribunal.

14.o Onotheoissueoofoassessmentoofoincome,oweoareoofothe viewothatothatoanoenhancedoincomeoshouldobeoconsidered forocalculationoofocompensation.oInothisoregard,o the appellantohasoproducedoonorecordohisoincomeotaxoreturns for o the o assessment o years o 2010-11 o and o 2011-12 o as Exhibitso14oando15,orespectively.oAsoperotheorecords,ofor theoassessmentoyearo2010-11o(theofinancialoyearowillobe 2009-10),otheoincomeoshownobyotheoappellantowasotoothe tuneoofoRs.1,65,100/-.oForotheoassessmentoyearo2011-12 (theofinancialoyearowillobeo2010-11),otheoincomeowas shown o as o Rs.1,77,400/-. o Further, o as o per o the o Salary CertificateoExhibit-22oplacedoonorecordobyotheoappellant, he o was o working o as o Branch o Manager o for o Padma Infrastructureoandoheowasogettingoaoconsolidatedosalary ofoRs.22,000ooneoyearopriorotootheodateoofoaccident.oNow, it o is o to o be o noted o that o the o accident o took o place o on

16.01.2014,oinotheofinancialoyearo2013-14.oIfoweocalculate theoannualoincomeoconsideringoRs.22,000,oitowouldocome outotooRs.2,64,000/-operoannum.oHowever,oasoperothe HighoCourtoandotheoTribunal,otheoannualoincomeois assessed o at o Rs.1,62,420/-. o However, o both o the o courts belowofailedotooconsiderotheofactothatothereoisoaogapoof approximatelyo02oyearsoando09omonthsobetweenotheosaid incomeotaxoreturnsoandotheodateoofoaccident.oItocanobe seenothatotheoincomeoofotheoappellant"o!asedoonothe incomeota2oreturnsosooproducedoonorecordoisoprogressive" thereoisoaopossi!ilityothatoheomayohaveoleftohiso!usiness andojoinoserviceotooimproveohisoincome.otihus"oinoourovie." it o .ould o !e o reasona!le o to o ta;e o the o income o of o the appellantoato#s.*"''"'''B&operoannum"oi.e."o#s.1:":::.:> peromonth.

¶28A perusal of the award shows that learned Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant/claimant to be entitled to minimum wages at the rate of Rs.3,000/ per month and has awarded compensation for loss of earning by applying the multiplier of 18 as Rs.6,48,000/ , whereas as per the record, his monthly income is shown to be Rs.25,000/ per month, which is evident from Income Tax Returns. Significantly, the learned Tribunal itself taken note of this fact and has further observed that, with the passage of time, the income of the appellant/claimant ought to have increased to Rs.50,000/ per month.

¶29Therefore, taking into consideration the pre accident income disclosed in the income tax returns and the surrounding circumstances, this Court deems it just and reasonable to assess the monthly income of the appellant/claimant at R '.07000@- for the purpose of computation of compensation, in order to meet the ends of justice. -ETT,EDo,A?oONoCOMPEN-ATION

¶30Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of RajoKumaroVs.oAjayoKumaroandoAnothero(2011)o1oSupremeoCourtoCases 343,ohasoheldoasounder:- Generaloprinciplesorelatingotoocompensationoinoinjuryocaseso

5.oTheoprovisionoofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988o('Act'ofor short)omakesoitoclearothatotheoawardomustobeojust,owhich meansothatocompensationoshould,otootheoextentopossible, fullyoandoadequatelyorestoreotheoclaimantotootheoposition priorotootheoaccident.oTheoobjectoofoawardingodamagesois toomakeogoodotheolossosufferedoasoaoresultoofowrongodone asofaroasomoneyocanodooso,oinoaofair,oreasonableoand equitableomanner.oTheocourtoorotribunaloshallohaveoto assess o the o damages o objectively o and o exclude o from considerationoanyospeculationoorofancy,othoughosome conjectureowithoreferenceotootheonatureoofodisabilityoand itsoconsequences,oisoinevitable.oAopersonoisonotoonlyotoobe compensatedoforotheophysicaloinjury,obutoalsooforotheoloss whichoheosufferedoasoaoresultoofosuchoinjury.oThisomeans thatoheoisotoobeocompensatedoforohisoinabilityotooleadoaofull life,ohisoinabilityotooenjoyothoseonormaloamenitiesowhich heowouldohaveoenjoyedobutoforotheoinjuries,oandohis inabilityotooearnoasomuchoasoheousedotooearnoorocould have o earned. o (See o C.K. o Subramonia o Iyer o v. o T. KunhikuttanoNair,oAIRo1970oSupremeoCourto376,oR.D. Hattangadiov.oPestoControlo(India)oLtd.,o1995o(1)oSCC 551oandoBakerov.oWilloughby,o1970oACo467).

6.o Theoheadsounderowhichocompensationoisoawarded inopersonaloinjuryocasesoareotheofollowingo: Pecuniaryodamageso(SpecialoDamages)o

(i) o Expenses o relating o to o treatment, o hospitalization, medicines, o transportation, o nourishing o food, o and miscellaneousoexpenditure.

(ii)oLossoofoearningso(andootherogains)owhichotheoinjured wouldohaveomadeohadoheonotobeenoinjured,ocomprisingo:

(a)oLossoofoearningoduringotheoperiodoofotreatment;o

(b) o Loss o of o future o earnings o on o account o of permanentodisability.

(iii)oFutureomedicaloexpenses.oNon-pecuniaryodamages (GeneraloDamages)

(iv) o Damages o for o pain, o suffering o and o trauma o as o a consequenceoofotheoinjuries.

(v) o Loss o of o amenities o (and/or o loss o of o prospects o of marriage).

(vi)oLossoofoexpectationoofolifeo(shorteningoofonormal longevity). Inoroutineopersonaloinjuryocases,ocompensationowillobe awardedoonlyounderoheadso(i),o(ii)(a)oando(iv).oItoisoonlyoin seriousocasesoofoinjury,owhereothereoisospecificomedical evidenceocorroboratingotheoevidenceoofotheoclaimant,othat compensationowillobeograntedounderoanyoofotheoheadso(ii)

(b),o(iii),o(v)oando(vi)orelatingotoolossoofofutureoearningsoon accountoofopermanentodisability,ofutureomedicaloexpenses, lossoofoamenitieso(and/orolossoofoprospectsoofomarriage) andolossoofoexpectationoofolife. xxx xxx

19.oWeomayonowosummariseotheoprinciplesodiscussed aboveo:

(i)oAlloinjurieso(oropermanentodisabilitiesoarisingofrom injuries),odoonotoresultoinolossoofoearningocapacity.

(ii)oTheopercentageoofopermanentodisabilityowithoreference tootheowholeobodyoofoaoperson,ocannotobeoassumedotoobe theopercentageoofolossoofoearningocapacity.oTooputoit differently,otheopercentageoofolossoofoearningocapacityois nototheosameoasotheopercentageoofopermanentodisability (exceptoinoaofewocases,owhereotheoTribunaloonotheobasisoof evidence,oconcludesothatopercentageoofolossoofoearning capacity o is o the o same o as o percentage o of o permanent disability).

(iii)oTheodoctorowhootreatedoanoinjured-claimantoorowho examinedohimosubsequentlyotooassessotheoextentoofohis permanentodisabilityocanogiveoevidenceoonlyoinoregardothe extent o of o permanent o disability. o The o loss o of o earning capacityoisosomethingothatowillohaveotoobeoassessedobyothe Tribunalowithoreferenceotootheoevidenceoinoentirety.

(iv)oTheosameopermanentodisabilityomayoresultoinodifferent percentages oof o loss o of o earning o capacityo in o different persons, o depending o upon o the o nature o of o profession, occupationoorojob,oage,oeducationoandootherofactors.

¶20oThe o assessment o of o loss o of o future o earnings o is explainedobelowowithoreferenceotootheofollowing Illustrationo'A'o:oTheoinjured,oaoworkman,owasoagedo30 yearsoandoearningoRs.o3000/-operomonthoatotheotimeoof accident. o As o per o Doctor's o evidence, o the o permanent disabilityoofotheolimboasoaoconsequenceoofotheoinjuryowas 60%oandotheoconsequentialopermanentodisabilityotoothe personowasoquantifiedoato30%.oTheolossoofoearning capacityoisohoweveroassessedobyotheoTribunaloaso15%oon theobasisoofoevidence,obecauseotheoclaimantoisocontinued inoemployment,obutoinoaolowerograde.oCalculationoof compensationowillobeoasofollows: a) o Annual o income o before o the o accident o : o Rs. 36,000/-. b)oLossoofofutureoearningoperoannumo oo(15%oofotheoprioroannualoincome)o:o ooRs.o5400/-. c)oMultiplieroapplicableowithoreferenceotooageo:o17 d)oLossoofofutureoearningso:o(5400oxo17)o:oRs. 91,800/- Illustrationo'B'o:oTheoinjuredowasoaodriveroagedo30oyears, earningoRs.o3000/-operomonth.oHisohandoisoamputatedoand hisopermanentodisabilityoisoassessedoato60%.oHeowas terminatedofromohisojoboasoheocouldonoolongerodrive.oHis chancesoofogettingoanyootheroemploymentowasobleakoand evenoifoheogotoanyojob,otheosalaryowasolikelyotoobeoa pittance.oTheoTribunalothereforeoassessedohisolossoof future o earning o capacity o as o 75%. o Calculation o of compensationowillobeoasofollowso:o a)oAnnualoincomeopriorotootheoaccidento:oRs. 36,000/-o. b)oLossoofofutureoearningoperoannumo (75%oofotheoprioroannualoincome)o:ooRs.o27000/-. c)oMultiplieroapplicableowithoreferenceotooageo:o17 d)oLossoofofutureoearningso:o(27000oxo17)o:oRs. 4,59,000/-o Illustrationo'C'o:oTheoinjuredowaso25oyearsoandoaofinal yearoEngineeringostudent.oAsoaoresultoofotheoaccident,ohe was o in o coma o for o two o months, o his o right o hand o was amputated o and o vision o was o affected. o The o permanent disablementowasoassessedoaso70%.oAsotheoinjuredowas incapacitatedotoopursueohisochosenocareeroandoasohe requiredotheoassistanceoofoaoservantothroughoutohisolife, theolossoofofutureoearningocapacityowasoalsooassessedoas 70%. o The o calculation o of o compensation o will o be o as followso: a)oMinimumoannualoincomeoheowould haveogotoifohadobeenoemployedoasoano Engineero :oRs.o60,000/-o b)oLossoofofutureoearningoperoannumo (70%oofotheoexpectedoannualoincome)o:oRs.o42000/- c)oMultiplieroapplicableo(25oyears)o :o18 d)oLossoofofutureoearningso:o(42000oxo18)o:oRs.o7,56,000/- [Noteo:oTheofiguresoadoptedoinoillustrationso(A)oando(B)oare hypothetical.oTheofiguresoinoIllustrationo(C)ohoweveroareobased onoactualsotakenofromotheodecisionoinoArvindoKumaroMishra (supra)].

¶31Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoof oNationaloInsurance CompanyoLtd.oVs.oPranayoSethio&oOrs.o[(2017)o16oSCCo680]ohasoclarified theolawounderoSectionso166,o163-Aoando168oofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988, onotheofollowingoaspects:-

(A) Deductionoofopersonaloandolivingoexpensesotoodetermine multiplicand;

(B) Selectionoofomultiplierodependingoonoageoofodeceased;

(C) Ageoofodeceasedoonobasisoforoapplyingomultiplier;

(D) Reasonableofiguresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely,oloss of o estate, o loss o of o consortium o and o funeral o expenses, o with escalation;

(E) Futureoprospectsoforoallocategoriesoofopersonsoandofor differentoages:owithopermanentojob;oself-employedoorofixed salary.o Theorelevantoportionoofotheojudgmentoisoreproducedoasounder:- "Therefore,oweothinkoitoseemlyotoofixoreasonableosums.oIt seemsotoousothatoreasonableofiguresoonoconventional heads,onamely,olossoofoestate,olossoofoconsortiumoand funeraloexpensesoshouldobeoRs.15,000,oRs.40,000oand Rs.15,000orespectively.o oTheoprincipleooforevisitingothe saidoheadsoisoanoacceptableoprinciple.oButotheorevisit shouldonotobeofact-centricooroquantum-centric.ooWeothink thatoitowouldobeocondignothatotheoamountothatoweohave quantifiedoshouldobeoenhancedoonopercentageobasisoin everyothreeoyearsoandotheoenhancementoshouldobeoatothe rateoofo10%oinoaospanoofothreeoyears.ooWeoareodisposedoto holdosoobecauseothatowillobringoinoconsistencyoinorespect ofothoseoheads."

¶32Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoof oErudhayaoPriyaoVs. StateoExpressoTran.oCorpn.oLtd.o2020oACJo2159,ohasoheldoasounder:- "7.oThereoareothreeoaspectsowhichoareorequiredotoobe examinedobyous:

(a)otheoapplicationoofomultiplieroofo'17'oinsteadoofo'18'; Theoaforesaidoincreaseoofomultiplieroisosoughtoonothe basisoofoageoofotheoappellantoaso23oyearsorelyingoonothe judgmentoinoNationaloInsuranceoCompanyoLimitedov. PranayoSethioandoOthers,o2017oACJo2700o(SC).oInopara 46 o of o the o said o judgment, o the o Constitution o Bench effectivelyoaffirmedotheomultiplieromethodotoobeousedoas mentionedoinotheotableoinotheocaseoofoSarlaoVermao(Smt) andoOthersov.oDelhioTransportoCorporationoandoAnother, 2009oACJo1298o(SC)o.oInotheoageogroupoofo15-25oyears, theomultiplierohasotoobeo'18'oalongowithofactoringoinothe extentoofodisability. Theoaforesaidopositionoisonotoreallyodisputedobyolearned counseloforotheorespondentoStateoCorporationoand,othus, weocomeotootheoconclusionothatotheomultiplierotoobe appliedoinotheocaseoofotheoappellantohasotoobeo'18'oandonot '17'.o

(b)oLossoofoearningocapacityoofotheoappellantowith permanentodisabilityoofo31.1% Inorespectoof otheoaforesaid,otheoappellantohas claimedocompensationoonowhatoisostatedotoobeotheosettled principleosetooutoinoJagdishov.oMohano&oOthers,o2018 ACJo1011o(SC)oandoSandeepoKhanujaov.oAtuloDandeo& Another,o2017oACJo979o(SC).oWeoextractobelowothe principleosetooutoinotheoJagdisho(supra)oinoparao8: "8.oInoassessingotheocompensationopayableothe settledoprinciplesoneedotoobeoborneoinomind.oA victim o who o suffers o a o permanent o or o temporary disabilityooccasionedobyoanoaccidentoisoentitledoto the o award o of o compensation. o The o award o of compensation o must o cover o among o others, o the followingoaspects:

(i) Pain,osufferingoandotraumaoresultingofrom theoaccident;o

(ii) oLossoofoincomeoincludingofutureoincome;o

(iii) Theoinabilityoofotheovictimotooleadoaonormal lifeotogetherowithoitsoamenities;

(iv) Medicaloexpensesoincludingothoseothatothe victim o may o be o required o to o undertake o in future;oando

(v) Lossoofoexpectationoofolife."o [emphasisosupplied]o Theoaforesaidoprincipleohasoalsoobeenoemphasized inoanoearlierojudgment,oi.e.otheoSandeepoKhanujaocase (supra)oopiningothatotheomultiplieromethodowasologically soundoandolegallyowelloestablishedotooquantifyotheolossoof incomeoasoaoresultoofodeathooropermanentodisability sufferedoinoanoaccident. Inotheofactualocontoursoofotheopresentocase,oifowe examine o the o disability o certificate, o it o shows o the admission/hospitalization o on o8 ooccasions ofor ovarious numberoofodaysoovero1½oyearsofromoAugusto2011oto Januaryo2013.oTheonatureoofoinjuriesohadobeenosetooutoas under:o "Natureoofoinjury:o

(i) compoundofractureoshaftoleftohumeruso

(ii) fractureobothobonesoleftoforearmo

(iii) compoundofractureobothobonesorightoforearmo

(iv) fractureo3rd,o4tho&o5thometacarpalsorightohando

(v) subtrochantericofractureorightofemuro

(vi) fractureoshaftofemur

(vii) fractureobothobonesoleftoleg oWeohaveoalsooperusedotheophotographsoannexedoto theopetitionoshowingotheocurrentophysicalostateoofothe appellant,othoughoitoisostatedobyolearnedocounseloforothe respondentoStateoCorporationothatotheosameowasonotoon recordoinotheotrialocourt.oBeothatoasoitomay,othisoisothe positionoevenoafterotreatmentoandotheonatureoofoinjuries itselfoshowotheiroextent.oFurther,oitohasobeenoopinedoin parao13oofoSandeepoKhanujaocaseo(supra)othatowhile applying o the o multiplier o method, o future o prospects o on advancementoinolifeoandocareeroareoalsootoobeotakenointo consideration.o Weoare,othus,ounequivocallyoofotheoviewothatothereois meritoinotheocontentionoofotheoappellantoandotheoaforesaid principlesowithoregardotoofutureoprospectsomustoalsoobe appliedoinotheocaseoofotheoappellantotakingotheopermanent disabilityoaso31.1%.oTheoquantificationoofotheosameoonothe basisoofotheojudgmentoinoNationaloInsuranceoCo.oLtd.ocase (supra),omoreospecificallyoparao61(iii),oconsideringothe ageoofotheoappellant,owouldobeo50%oofotheoactualosalary inotheopresentocase.o

(c)oTheothirdoandotheolastoaspectoisotheointerestorate claimedoaso12%o Ino respecto of otheoaforesaid,otheoappellant ohas wateredodownotheointerestorateoduringotheocourseoof hearingotoo9%oinoviewoofotheojudicialopronouncements includingoinotheoJagdish'socaseo(supra).oOnothisoaspect, onceoagain,othereowasonooseriousodisputeoraisedobyothe learnedocounseloforotheorespondentoonceotheoclaimowas confinedotoo9%oinolineowithotheointerestoratesoappliedoby thisoCourt. CONCLUSIONo

8.oTheoresultoofotheoaforesaidoisothatorelyingoonotheosettled principles, o the o calculation o of o compensation o by o the appellant,oasosetooutoinoparao5oofotheosynopsis,owould haveotoobeoadoptedoasofollows: Heads Awarded Loss o of o earning o power Rs.o9,81,978/- (Rs.14,648oxo12oxo31.1/100 Futureoprospectso(50operocent Rs.4,90,989/- addition) Medical o expenses o including Rs.18,46,864/- transport o charges, nourishment,oetc. Lossoofomatrimonialoprospects Rs.5,00,000/- Loss o of o comfort, o loss o of Rs.1,50,000/- amenitiesoandomentaloagonyo Painoandosuffering Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.41,69,831/- The o appellant o would, o thus, o be o entitled o to o the compensationoofoRs.o41,69,831/-oasoclaimedoalongowithosimple interest o at o the o rate o of o 9% o per o annum o from o the o date o of applicationotillotheodateoofopayment. -.5-CATEGORICoDECI-IONoONoHEAD?I-EoCOMPEN-ATIONoAFTER TAHINGoINTOoCON-IDERATIONoTHEo,ATE-ToREPORToDATED 21'0.'2023&- 1' MEDICA,oBI,,-o@oMEDICA,oE;PENDITUREo(PROFEDoBY ADDITIONA,oEFIDENCE7oA-oPERoREPORToDATEDo21'0.'2023)o

¶33It transpires from the report dated 21.04.2023 that the learned Tribunal, while passing the original award, had granted a sum of Rs.15,00,000/ towards medical expenses, the same being duly supported by medical bills forming part of the record.

¶34It is further revealed that pursuant to the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Co ordinate Bench of this Court, the claimant/applicant placed additional evidence on record to substantiate the medical expenditure incurred subsequent to the passing of the award dated 01.05.2008. Upon consideration of the said additional evidence and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respondent–Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal, in its report dated 21.04.2023, recorded a categorical finding that the appellant/claimant had incurred an additional medical expenditure of Rs.22,17,844/ during the period commencing from the date of the award till the date of submission of the said report.

¶35In view of the report dated 21.04.2023 of the learned Tribunal and having regard to the continuing nature of the treatment necessitated by the injuries sustained in the accident, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the said assessment. Consequently, this Court holds that the appellant/ claimant is entitled to a total sum of R '3071078..@- towards medical -.*- expenses, being the aggregate of the amount originally awarded and the additional expenditure subsequently proved on record. 2' FUTUREoMEDICA,oE;PEN-E-oAND oREKUIREMENToOF MEDICA,oTREATMENToINoTHEoUNITEDo-TATE-oOFoAMERICA7 A-oPERo,ATE-ToREPORToDATEDo21'0.'2023&

¶36Before assessing the claim for future medical expenses, it is necessary to advert to the present physical and medical condition of the appellant/claimant. From the recent report dated 21.04.2023 of the learned Tribunal, it emerges that when the appellant/claimant, Narinder Pal Singh, appeared as PW 7 and was subjected to cross examination, the Tribunal recorded a significant observation that the appellant/claimant expressed his inability to hear the questions and requested that the same be put to him in writing. This contemporaneous observation of the learned Tribunal lends substantial credence to the appellant/claimant's assertion regarding severe hearing impairment.

¶37The report dated 21.04.2023 further reveals that the appellant/claimant has produced an original medical certificate (Ex. P 1067) issued by Dr. Tushar Arora, M.S., M.Ch. (Neurosurgery), Senior Consultant Neurosurgeon, Shrimann Superspeciality Hospital, Jalandhar, wherein it has been opined that the appellant/claimant is suffering from e"e!eoC1932e!39 21%%12( o6124oC1932e!39o4e3!1%Io9$ 7o!1I42-1#e#oFII24o%e!"eo)$5B9eA "3 )(93!o)$%E91)27o#eB!e 1$%7o)4!$%1)o4e3#3)4e7o1% $5%137o3%#o#13Ce2e . The medical expert has further certified that the appellant/claimant has -.0-consulted several neurosurgeons across the country but has derived no significant relief from the persistent symptoms.

¶38Additionally, certificate Ex.P 1068 issued by Dr. Akshata Desai, MBBS, MD (USA), DM eq. (USA), Endocrinologist and Diabetologist, Apex Hospital, records that the appellant/claimant has been suffering from TDBe-IIo#13Ce2e 7o21%%12( 7o3%#o"e!21I$oe"e!o 1%)eo24eo!$3# 2!3EE1)o3))1#e%2, which has severely disrupted his sleep cycle and has adversely impacted his blood sugar levels, blood pressure, weight, and overall health.

¶39On similar lines, certificate Ex.P 1069 issued by Dr. Karanbir Singh, MBBS, MD (USA), DM (USA), Consultant Neurologist, Apex Hospital, Jalandhar, has been brought on record. The said certificate reflects that the appellant/claimant has undergone neurological intervention, including $))1B1239 o %e!"e o C9$)L o B!$)e#(!e o CD o 63D o $E o 24e!3Be(21) 1%Ge)21$% , the corresponding prescription whereof stands proved as Ex.P 1070.

¶40Further corroboration is found in the hearing evaluation report issued by PGIMER, Chandigarh (Ex. P 1071), which conclusively establishes that the appellant/claimant is suffering from )$5B9e2eoC1932e!39 4e3!1%Io9$ .

¶41Significantly, as certified by Dr. Akshata Desai in certificate Ex. P 1068, the appellant/claimant !e:(1!e o3#51%1 2!321$%o$Eo5$!eo243%o1*0 (%12 o$Eo1% (91%o#319Do39$%Io6124oE$(!o$!39o3%21-#13Ce21)o3Ie%2 o2$oB!e"e%2 I9D)e51)o B1Le . This medical opinion unequivocally establishes that the -.8-appellant/claimant will be compelled to incur substantial recurring monthly expenditure towards medicines, investigations, and supportive care for the rest of his life in order to prevent further complications.

¶42Additionally, certificate Ex. P 543 issued by Dr. Kuldeep Singh, Orthopedic Surgeon, has been brought on record, wherein the appellant/claimant has been advised to undergo 53G$! o (!I1)39 1%2e!"e%21$%oE$!o%$%-(%1$%o$Eo24eo!1I42o)93"1)9e7o1%"$9"1%IoB9321%Io3%# C$%eoI!3E21%I. The appellant/claimant has also asserted in his affidavit that he is required to incur substantial expenditure for the said surgery.

¶43The cumulative effect of the aforesaid medical evidence— emanating from specialists in neurosurgery, neurology, endocrinology, and otorhinolaryngology, as well as from a premier government medical institution clearly establishes that the appellant/claimant is (EEe!1%IoE!$5 Be!53%e%27 o 1!!e"e! 1C9e7 o 3%# o B!$I!e 1"e o 5e#1)39 o )$%#121$% . These conditions necessitate continuous medical care, supervision, and treatment for the remainder of his life. In such circumstances, the entitlement of the appellant/claimant to future medical expenses stands fully justified.

¶44In view of the medical evidence discussed herein above, this Court is satisfied that the appellant/claimant is (EEe!1%IoE!$5oBe!53%e%2 3%#o1!!e"e! 1C9eo#1 3C19121e 7o1%)9(#1%Io)$5B9e2eoC1932e!39o4e3!1%Io9$ 7 #353Ieo2$o)!3%139o%e!"e 7o)4!$%1)o%e(!$9$I1)39o#1 $!#e! 7o#13Ce2e 7 1% $5%137o#eB!e 1$%7o3%#o"e!21I$7o399o$Eo641)4o3!eo#1!e)2o e:(e93eo$Eo24e 3))1#e%2. The record further establishes that despite prolonged treatment and consultations with specialists across the country, the appellant/claimant -.9-continues to require ongoing medical intervention, monitoring, medication, and supportive therapy.

¶45Having regard to the nature of the ailments, the continuing requirement of neurological, endocrinological, and ENT treatment, the cost of lifelong medication, periodic investigations, and the likelihood of future therapeutic procedures, this Court is of the considered view that the need for future medical expenditure is neither speculative nor remote but a certainty.

¶46Though no precise mathematical calculation of future medical expenses is possible, the law does not require exactitude in such matters, and the Court is obligated to award just compensation based on reasonable estimation.

¶47Reliance at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in H'oR35D3o&oO! 'oF 'oN321$%39oI% (!3%)eoC$'o,2#'o& A%!'7o2022oIN-Co10.., wherein the Apex Court has held that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. It is further held that the determination of quantum is a fact dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. Hon'ble the Apex Court emphasized that compensation is a more comprehensive form of pecuniary relief which involves a broad based approach.

¶48As per latest report dated 21.04.2023, the appellant/claimant is suffering from 100% permanent functional disability.

¶49The next issue requiring consideration is whether the advanced medical treatment necessitated by the appellant/claimant is available within the country or whether such treatment is required to be undertaken abroad, particularly in the United States of America.

¶50As per latest report dated 21.04.2023, the affidavit of Dr. Col. Harinder Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of ENT, Command Hospital, Chandimandir, Chandigarh (Ex. P 1696), who was examined as PW 10, categorically deposed that the appellant/claimant sustained serious head and brain injuries resulting in permanent neurological damage, requiring major and complex neurosurgical intervention. The doctor opined that such surgery ought to be undertaken abroad owing to its complexity and specialized nature.

¶51The opinion stands corroborated by Dr. Pankaj Trivedi, Brain and Spine Surgeon, Jalandhar (Ex. P 1697), examined as PW 11, who testified that despite best treatment, the appellant/claimant has not improved and continues to suffer from constant echoing sensations and insomnia, and that the required neuro brain surgery is available only in select foreign countries, including the United States of America.

¶52Further corroboration is available from certificates issued by Dr. Shamit Chopra, Head of the Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Patel Hospital, Jalandhar (Ex. P 546), and Dr. Harinder Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of ENT, Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Durgapur, both recommending bilateral cochlear implantation with post operative rehabilitation, with an estimated cost of ₹35,00,000/ . Similar urgency for advanced treatment abroad is recorded in certificates Ex. P 1067 (Dr. Tushar Arora, Senior Consultant Neurosurgeon), Ex. P 1068 (Dr. Akshata Desai), and Ex. P 1550 issued by the Professor and Head of ENT, PIMS Hospital, Jalandhar.

¶53The medical evidence on record, emanating from specialists across premier institutions of the country, speaks in one voice that the appellant/claimant is in dire need of advanced surgical intervention, which, given the complexity of his condition, is realistically available only at select foreign medical centers, particularly in the United States of America. This position is further reinforced by certificate Ex. P 1550 issued by the Professor and Head of the Department of ENT, Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) Hospital, Jalandhar, certifying that the appellant/claimant requires urgent advanced surgical treatment for his head and ear injuries from the U.S.A.

¶54It is also significant to note that the appellant/claimant has already consulted numerous neurologists and otologists across various parts of the country, including Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Durgapur, Mumbai, and other centers, without any meaningful improvement. The persistent deterioration of his health condition resulting into overall physical condition and the absence of relief despite exhaustive treatment in India clearly establish that advanced intervention is the only remaining option to alleviate his suffering.

¶55The appellant/claimant has further produced on record documentary evidence relating to appointments sought at the Mayo Clinic, Minnesota, United States of America, for assessment and treatment. The estimated expenditure issued by the said institution has also been placed on record. For cochlear implant surgery, an estimated cost of United States Dollar 7,903 has been indicated for appointments, and United States Dollar 1,02,197 for surgery. For brain lesion removal surgery relating to nerve damage, an estimated cost ranging from United States Dollar 66,635 to United States Dollar 1,46,600 has been furnished, with an average estimated cost of United States Dollar 1,08,950, vide estimate No. 500758. These estimates form part of Ex. P 1547 (pages 49 to 51).

¶56Notably, the respondent–Insurance Company has failed to impeach the testimony of medical witnesses/doctors, who are specialist of highest repute or place on record any contrary medical opinion or cost estimate.

¶57In view of the consistent and expert medical evidence, coupled with the appellant/claimant's failure to obtain relief despite extensive treatment within the country, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the conclusion of the learned Tribunal in its recent report dated 21.04.2023 that the advanced treatment required by the appellant/claimant is not readily available in India. The finding that the appellant/claimant requires treatment in the United States of America, therefore, merits affirmation.

¶58Based on the estimates produced on record from the Mayo Clinic, Minnesota, U.S.A., the average estimated cost for brain lesion removal surgery is United States Dollar 1,08,950, which, at the prevailing exchange rate, converts to approximately ₹99.76 lakhs (about ₹1 crore).

¶59For clarity and judicial precision, the conversion of the foreign medical estimates may be recorded as under: • Brain lesion removal surgery: Estimated range: United States Dollar 66,635 to United States Dollar 1,46,600 Average estimate: United States Dollar 1,08,950 ≈ ₹99.76 lakhs • Cochlear implant surgery: Appointment and evaluation: United States Dollar 7,903 ≈ ₹7.2 lakhs Surgical procedure: United States Dollar 1,02,197 ≈ ₹93.6 lakhs

¶60Thus, the cumulative projected expenditure for advanced treatment and surgical intervention in the United States of America runs into well over Rs.2,00,00,000/ (Rupees Two Crores), exclusive of travel, stay, incidental expenses of appellant/claimant and his attendants and his post operative rehabilitation.

¶61These figures are based on official estimates issued by the Mayo Clinic and remain unrebutted, as the respondent–Insurance Company has neither produced any contrary estimate nor led evidence to dispute the necessity or cost of such treatment. Consequently, the foreign medical expenditure claimed by the appellant/claimant cannot be termed speculative and deserves due consideration while awarding just compensation.

¶62In view of the above, this Court deems it just, fair and reasonable to award a consolidated sum of R '*7007007000@-o(R(Bee o-1A C!$!e o$%9D) towards foreign medical treatment, including post operative rehabilitation, incidental expenses and future follow ups, in the interest of justice.

¶3ATTENDANToCHARGES

¶63Soofaroasotheoclaimoforoattendantochargesoisoconcerned,otheoissue isonoolongeroresointegra.oTheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourt,oinoKajalov.oJagdish Chandoandoothers,o2020o(2)oR.C.R.o(Civil)o27,ohasoauthoritativelyoheldothat inocasesoofopermanentoandosevereodisability,otheoassessmentoofoattendant chargesomustobeomadeobyoapplyingotheomultiplieromethod,okeepingoinoview notoonlyotheomedicaloconditionoofotheoinjuredobutoalsootheorequirementoof lifelongoassistance.ooTheorelevantoextractoofotheosameoisoreproducedoasounder:- "22.o Theoattendantochargesohaveobeenoawardedobyothe HighoCourto@oLo2,500/-operomonthoforo44oyears,owhich worksooutotooLo13,20,000/-.oUnfortunately,othisosystemois notoaoproperosystem.oMultiplierosystemoisousedotoobalance outovariousofactors.oWhenocompensationoisoawardedoin lumposum,ovariousofactorsoareotakenointooconsideration. Whenocompensationoisopaidoinolumposum,othisoCourtohas alwaysofollowedotheomultiplierosystem.oTheomultiplier systemoshouldobeofollowedonotoonlyoforodeterminingothe compensationoonoaccountoofolossoofoincomeobutoalsoofor determiningotheoattendantochargesoetc.oThisosystemowas recognisedobyothisoCourtoinoGobaldoMotoroServiceoLtd.ov. R.M.K.oVeluswami,oAIRo1962oSupremeoCourto1.oThe multiplierosystemofactorsoinotheoinflationorate,otheorateoof interestopayableoonotheolumposumoaward,otheolongevityoof the o claimant, o and o also o other o issues o such o as o the uncertaintiesoofolife.oOutoofoallotheovariousoalternative methods,otheomultiplieromethodohasobeenorecognisedoas theomostorealisticoandoreasonableomethod.oItoensures betterojusticeobetweenotheopartiesoandothusoresultsoin awardoofo`justocompensation'owithinotheomeaningoofothe Act.

23. XXX XXX XXX

24. XXX XXX XXX

25.o Havingoheldoso,oweoareoclearlyoofotheoviewothatothe basicoamountotakenoforodeterminingoattendantochargesois veryomuchoonotheoloweroside.oWeomustorememberothatothis littleogirloisoseverelyosufferingofromoincontinenceomeaning thatosheodoesonotohaveocontrolooveroherobodilyofunctions likeopassingourineoandofaeces.oAsosheogrowsoolder,oshe willonotobeoableotoohandleoheroperiods.oSheorequiresoan attendantovirtuallyo24ohoursoaoday.oSheorequiresoan attendantowhoothoughomayonotobeomedicallyotrainedobut mustobeocapableoofohandlingoaochildowhooisobedoridden. Sheowouldorequireoanoattendantowhoowouldoensureothat sheodoesonotosufferofromobedosores.oTheoclaimantohas placedobeforeousoaonotificationoofotheoStateoofoHaryanaoof theoyearo2010,owhereinotheowagesoforoskilledolaboureroisoL 4846/-operomonth.oWe,otherefore,oassessotheocostoofoone attendantoatoLo5,000/-andosheowillorequireotwooattendants whichoworksooutotooLo10,000/-operomonth,owhichocomesoto Lo1,20,000/-operoannum,oandousingotheomultiplieroofo18oit worksooutotooLo21,60,000/-oforoattendantochargesoforoher entireolife.oThisotakesocareoofoallotheopecuniaryodamages."

¶64AoperusaloofotheorecentoreportoofotheolearnedoTribunal,oreadoin conjunctionowithotheomedicaloevidenceoonorecord,oclearlyodemonstratesothat theoappellant/claimantohasobeenocontinuouslyosufferingosinceotheodateoofothe accidentoi.e.o13.10.2002.oTheoappellant/claimantoisoafflictedowithopersistent tinnitusoresultingoinoconstantoringingoandobuzzingosoundsoinotheobrainoand -5*- both inner ears. The Court can reasonably infer the magnitude of physical and mental agony endured by the appellant/claimant, which is incapable of precise quantification.

¶65The evidence further reveals that despite consulting multiple specialists, including Neurologists and Otologists at Jalandhar, Durgapur (West Bengal), Ludhiana, and Mumbai, the appellant/claimant has not derived any lasting relief. The entire medical record is consistent in establishing that due to the continuous tinnitus, the appellant/claimant suffers from chronic insomnia, depression, vertigo, uncontrolled diabetes, and hypertension. The appellant/claimant is unable to sleep either during the night or the day, which is essential for normal human functioning. The persistent buzzing sound does not permit him to rest even for short intervals, thereby severely impairing his daily functioning and mental well being.

¶66In support of the claim for attendant charges, PW 9 Som Raj has been examined, who has categorically deposed that he has been working as an attendant/caretaker for the appellant/claimant since the year 2002 and has been receiving a salary of ₹12,000/ per month. His testimony has remained unshaken. Further, the medical experts have specifically recommended the requirement of an attendant/caretaker in their certificates Ex. P 1067 and Ex. P 1068.

¶67Having regard to the nature of latest medical health and the multiple neurological and systemic complications, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellant/claimant requires continuous assistance for his day to day activities as well as for medical care. The facts of the present case clearly establish that the appellant/claimant cannot manage his affairs independently and necessarily requires the services of attendants.

¶68Considering the severity of the condition and the constant medical needs of the appellant/claimant, this Court is of the considered view that the engagement of at least two attendants is indispensable. Taking a conservative approach, the minimum amount payable to an attendant is reasonably assessed at Rs.30,000/ per month. Accordingly, for two attendants, the monthly attendant charges would work out to Rs.60,000/ . This expenditure is minimum to be incurred by the appellant/claimant through out his life in India. Minimum amount payable to attendant to attend the patient with such medical condition is reasonably assessed as Rs.30,000/ per month. Accordingly, for two attendants monthly attendant charges would be Rs.60,000/ per month.

¶69In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H3G39o"'oJ3I#1 4oC43%# (supra), the attendant charges so assessed are required to be capitalized by applying the appropriate multiplier. The appellant/claimant is, therefore, held entitled to attendant charges calculated at the rate of Rs.60,000/ per month, multiplied by 17 and further multiplied by the applicable multiplier, in order to award just and reasonable compensation. Consequently, the compensation under the head of attendant charges is assessed as R '17227.07000@-. .' PAINoANDo-UFFERING

¶70Insofar as compensation under the head of pain and suffering is concerned, the material on record leaves no room for doubt that the claimant/appellant has endured extraordinary physical pain and profound mental anguish. The gravity of the injuries sustained, the prolonged and continuous medical treatment, and the permanent functional disabilities resulting therefrom have subjected the appellant/claimant to suffering of an intensity and duration that is incapable of precise quantification.

¶71This Court cannot but observe that the compensation in injury cases is not merely about numbers; it is about acknowledging pain, restoring dignity and securing the future of a person whose life has been irreversibly altered. The trauma and distress undergone by the appellant/claimant since the date of the accident are such that monetary assessment can only ever be an approximation. Nevertheless, the appellant/claimant is entitled to just, fair, and reasonable compensation under this head, commensurate with the extent of pain and suffering endured.

¶72Reference at this stage can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of H'-' o M(!391#43!o "' o R' -(CC(93L 451o3%#o3%$24e!o202.o-CCoO%91%eo-Co3385, has settled the law regarding grant of compensation under the head of "Pain and Suffering". The relevant portion of the H'-'M(!391#43!8 case is reproduced as under: "1*.o ?toisotoo!eonotedothato!othotheotiri!unaloandotheo%igh $ourtohaveota;enotheodisa!ilityosufferedo!yotheoclaimant& appellantotoo!eoato1''M.oWeofindonoogroundotoota;eoa differentovie..

13.o Whileoacknowledgingothato`painoandosuffering',oasoa conceptoescapesodefinition,oweomayoonlyoreferotoocertain authorities,oscholarlyoasoalsoojudicialowhereinoattempts haveobeenomadeotoosetodownotheocontoursothereof.

13.1o Theoentryorecordingotheotermo`painoandosuffering'oin P.oRamanathaoIyer'soAdvancedoLawoLexicon[9]oreadsoas under:- [9o3rdoEditionoreprinto2009,oLexisoNexis,oButterworths Wadhwa,opageo3441] "Painoandosuffering.oTheotermo`Painoandosuffering'omean physicalodiscomfortoandodistressoandoincludeomentaloand emotionalotraumaoforowhichodamagesocanobeorecoveredoin anoaccidentoclaim. Thisoexpressionohasobecomeoalmostoaotermoofoart,oused without o making o fine o distinction o between o pain o and suffering.oPainoandosufferingowhichoaopersonoundergoes cannot o be o measured o in o terms o of o money o by o any mathematicalocalculation.oHenceotheoCourtoawardsoaosum whichoisoinotheonatureoofoaoconventionaloawardo[Mediana, Theo(1900)oACo113,o116]"

13.2o Eric o Cassell[10], o an o American o Physician o and Bioethicist,odefineso`pain'onotoonlyoasoaosensationobutoalso `asoexperienceoembeddedoinobeliefsoaboutocausesoand diseasesoandotheiroconsequences',oando`suffering'oaso`the state o of o severe o distress o associated o with o events o that threatenotheointactnessoofoperson'. [10ohttp://www.ericcassell.com/bio.html]

13.3o Inoaorecentoarticle[11]opublishedoinotheojournaloof theoInternationaloAssociationoforotheoStudyoofoPain,oitohas beenorecordedothatothereoisonooconsensusoonowhatoexactly theoconceptoofopain-relatedosufferingoincludes,oandoitois oftenonotopreciselyooperationalisedoinoempiricalostudies. Theo authorso ino theiro systematicoreviewoanalysedo 111 articlesoacrossoaovarietyoofodisciplinesosuchoasobioethics, medical o ethics, o psycho-oncology, o anaesthesiology, philosophy,osociologyoetc.,oweomayoreferotoofewoofothem: [11oNoe-Steinm?lleroet.al,o(2024)o"Definingosufferingoin pain:oaosystematicoreviewoonopain-relatedosufferingousing naturalolanguageoprocessing."o165o(7)o:op1434-1449]

13.3.1 o Eugene o V. o Boisaubin[12], o who o is o currently o a ProfessoroatotheoUniversityoofoTexas,oatoHouston,oinoa 1989oarticleodefinedoitoaso"Sufferingoisoexperiencedoby individualoandoarisesofromothreatsotootheointegrityoofothe individualoasoaocomplexosocialoandopsychologicaloentity." [12 ohttps://med.uth.edu/oep/members-2/eugene-v-boisaubin-md/]

13.3.2oAndrewoEdgar,owhooisocurrentlyoaoReaderoEmeritus inoPhilosophyoatoCardiffoUniversityoatoUKohasodefined,oin ao2007oarticleosufferingoasoano"experienceoofolifeonever gettingobetter,orevealingoinotheosuffereroonlyovulnerability, futility,oandoimpotence."

13.3.3 o Arthur o W. o Frank[13], o Professor o Emeritus, DepartmentoofoSociology,oUniversityoofoCalgaryoinohis well-known o article o "Can o We o Research o Suffering?", publishedoino2001,oobservedothato"atotheocoreoofosuffering isotheosenseothatosomethingoisoirreparablyowrongowithoour lives,oandowrongoisotheonegationoofowhatocouldohaveobeen right.oSufferingoresistsodefinitionobecauseoitoisotheoreality ofowhatoisonot." [13ohttps://sps.columbia.edu/faculty/arthur-w-frank-phd]

13.3.4 o Daryl o Pullman[14] o who o currently o serves o as UniversityoresearchoProfessor,oBioethicsoatotheoMemorial UniversityoofoNewfoundland,oCanadaoinohiso2002oarticle defined o suffering o as o the o "product o of o [physical], psychological,oeconomic,oorootherofactorsothatofrustrateoan individualoinotheopursuitoofosignificantolifeoprojects." [14 ohttps://www.mun.ca/medicine/faculty-and-staff-resources/faculty-a-z/pullman-daryl.php]

13.4oTheoJudicialoStudiesoBoard,onowoknownoasothe Judicial o College o in o the o United o Kingdom, o produced guidelinesoino1992otooproduceogreateroconsistencyoof awardsoandomakeotheojudicialoscaleoofovaluesomoreoeasily accessible.oTheyohaveobeenodeducedofromoaostudyoofopast cases,oexaminingotheorangeoofoawardsotherein.oTheolatest editionoofotheseoguidelinesowasopublishedoino2021[15]. They o record o the o difficulty o of o computing o `pain o and suffering'oasoundero:- [15oSeeo:oHassamoandoAnr.ov.oRabotoandoAnr.o(2024) UKSCo11] "Itoisowidelyoacceptedothatomakingoofoanoawardoofogeneral damagesoforopainoandosufferingoisoaosomewhatoartificial task.oItoinvolvesotheoJudgeoseekingotooconvertotheopainoand sufferingoofoaogivenoclaimantointooaomonetaryoaward whichoheoorosheoconsidersotoobeoreasonableobyowayoof compensation.oThatoisoaodifficultotaskoandooneowhichohas historicallyoledotoojudgesomakingowidelyovaryingoawards ofodamagesoinorespectooforelativelyocomparableoinjuriesoa resultowhichonotoonlyooffendsotheoprincipleoofoequality beforeolawobutoresultsoinounnecessaryoappealsoandothe incurringoofoadditionalocost,oapartoaltogetherofromothe burdenothatosuchoappealsoplaceoonotheoCourt'soownoscarce resources."

13.5oInodeterminingonon-pecuniaryodamages,otheoartificial natureoofocomputingocompensationohasobeenohighlighted inoHeilov.oRankino[2001]oQBo272,oasoreferredotooin AttorneyoGeneraloofoSt.oHelenaov.oABo&oOrs.oPrivy CounciloAppealoNo.o0034oofo2018oasounder:- "23.o This o principleo ofo `full o compensation'o applies o to pecuniary o and o non-pecuniary o damage o alike. o But, o as Dickson o J o indicated o in o the o passage o cited o from o his judgmentoinoAndrewsov.oGrando&oToyoAlbertaoLtd,o83oDLR

(3d)o452,o475-476,othisostatementoimmediatelyoraisesoa problemoinoaosituationowhereowhatoisoinoissueoisowhatothe appropriateoleveloofo`fullocompensation'oforonon-pecuniary injuryoisowhenotheocompensationohasotoobeoexpressedoin pecuniary o terms. o There o is o no o simple o formula o for convertingotheopainoandosuffering,otheolossoofofunction,othe lossoofoamenityoandodisabilityowhichoanoinjuredopersonohas sustained,ointoomonetaryoterms.oAnyoprocessoofoconversion mustobeoessentiallyoartificial.oLordoPearceoexpressedoit welloinoHoWesto&oSonoLtdov.oShephardo[1964]oACo326,o364 whenoheosaid: `Theocourtohasotooperformotheodifficultoandoartificialotask ofoconvertingointoomonetaryodamagesotheophysicaloinjury andodeprivationoandopainoandotoogiveojudgmentoforowhatoit considersotoobeoaoreasonableosum.oItodoesonotolookobeyond theojudgmentotootheospendingoofotheodamages.'

24.o Theolastopartoofothisostatementoisoundoubtedlyoright. Theoinjuredopersonomayonotoevenobeoinoaopositionotooenjoy theodamagesoheoreceivesobecauseoofotheoinjuryowhichohe hasosustained.oLordoClydeorecognisedothisoinoWellsov.oWells [1999]o 1oACo345,o 394Howhen oheo said:o`Oneo clear principleoisothatowhatotheosuccessfuloplaintiffowilloinothe eventoactuallyodoowithotheoawardoisoirrelevant."

13.6 o In o the o context o of o the o United o States, o the o most importantopieceoofolegaloliteratureoregardingo`painoand suffering'oisoanoarticleotitledoValuingoLifeoandoLimboin Tort:oSchedulingoPainoandoSuffering,opublishedoinotheoyear 1989.oRelevantoextractsothereoforeadoasoundero: "Painoandosufferingoandootherointangibleooronon-economic lossesoareoevenomoreoproblematic.oPhysicalopainoand attendantosufferingohaveoforocenturiesobeingorecognisedoas legitimateoelementsoofodamages,oando"modern"otortolaw hasoseenoaomarkedoexpansionoofotheorightsotoorecoverofor forms o of o mental o anguish. o Some o Courts o have o even permittedorecoveryoforoemotionalotraumaounaccompanied byophysicaloinjury,oincludingoderivativeolossesostemming fromoinjuriesotoofamilyomembers.oTheopreciseoelementsoof compensableonon-economicolossovaryobyojurisdiction.oPain andosufferingomayobeousedoasoaocatch-allocategoryoforothe jury'soconsiderationoofoallonon-pecuniaryolossesoinoaocase of o a o nonfatal o injury, o subsuming o other o qualitative categoriesosuchoasomentaloanguishoandohumiliation.oMore commonly,othough,ootheronon-economicoelementso-osuchoas "lossoofoenjoymentoofolife"oareoaccordedoindependent standingo…" Anotheroimportantoobservationoisothat: "Whatever o the o categories o of o non-economic o damages allowedoinoaogivenojurisdiction,otheolawoprovidesono objectiveobenchmarksovaluingothem.oAsooneocommentator notes,o"Courtsohaveousuallyobeenocontentotoosayothatopain and o suffering o damages o should o amount o to o `fair compensation',ooroao`reasonableoamount',o`withoutoany definiteoguide'."

13.7oConsiderationoofotheoabove,ounderlinesothatowhile eachodisciplineohasoitsoownoconceptionoofotheomeaningoof pain/suffering,owithinoitsoconfines,otheocommonalityothat emergesoisothatoaoperson'sounderstandingoofooneselfois shakenoorocompromisedoatoitsoveryorootoatotheohandsoof consistent o suffering. o In o the o present o facts, o it o is unquestionable o that o the o sense o of o something o being irreparablyowrongoinolife,oasospokenobyoFranko(supra); vulnerabilityoandofutility,oasospokenobyoEdgar,oisopresent andosuchoaofeelingowillobeopresentoforotheoremainderoofohis naturalolife.

14.o Inorespectoofo`painoandosuffering'oinocasesowhere disabilityosufferedoisoato100%,oweomayonoticeoaofew decisionsoofothisoCourt:-

14.1oInoR.DoHattangadiov.oPestoControlo(India)o(P)oLtd.

(1995)o1oSCCo551.oItowasoobservedo: "17.oTheoclaimounderoSl.oNo.o16oforo`painoandosuffering' andoforolossoofoamenitiesoofolifeounderoSl.oNo.o17,oare claimsoforonon-pecuniaryoloss.oTheoappellantohasoclaimed lumposumoamountoofoRs.3,00,000oeachounderotheotwo heads.oTheoHighoCourtohasoallowedoRs.1,00,000oagainst theoclaimsoofoRs.6,00,000.oWhenocompensationoisotoobe awardedoforo`painoandosuffering'oandolossoofoamenityoof life,otheospecialocircumstancesoofotheoclaimantohaveotoobe taken o into o account o including o his o age, o the o unusual deprivationoheohasosuffered,otheoeffectothereofoonohisofuture life.oTheoamountoofocompensationoforonon-pecuniaryoloss isonotoeasyotoodetermineobutotheoawardomustoreflectothat different o circumstances o have o been o taken o into consideration.oAccordingotoous,oasotheoappellantowasoan advocateohavingogoodopracticeoinodifferentocourtsoandoas becauseoofotheoaccidentoheohasobeenocrippledoandocan moveoonlyoonowheelchair,otheoHighoCourtoshouldohave allowedoanoamountoofoRs.1,50,000oinorespectoofoclaimofor `painoandosuffering'oandoRs.1,50,000oinorespectoofolossoof amenities o of o life. o We o direct o payment o of o Rs.3,00,000 (Rupeesothreeolakhsoonly)oagainstotheoclaimoofoRs.6,00,000 underotheoheadso"`painoandosuffering'"oando"Lossoof amenitiesoofolife". (EmphasisoSupplied)

14.2oThisoJudgmentowasorecentlyoreferredotoobyothisoCourt inoSidramov.oUnitedoIndiaoInsuranceoCompanyoLtd.o(2023) 3oSCCo439oreferenceowasoalsoomadeotooKarnatakaoSRTCov. MahadevaoShettyo(2003)o7oSCCo197o(irrespectiveoofothe percentageoofodisabilityoincurred,otheoobservationsoare instructive),owhereinoitowasoobservedo: "18.oAopersononotoonlyosuffersoinjuriesoonoaccountoof accidentobutoalsoosuffersoinomindoandobodyoonoaccountoof theoaccidentothroughooutohisolifeoandoaofeelingoisodeveloped thatohisonoomoreoaonormalomanoandocannotoenjoyothe amenitiesoofolifeoasoanotheronormalopersonocan.oWhile fixingocompensationoforopainoandosufferingoasoalsooforoloss ofoamenities,ofeaturesolikeohisoage,omaritalostatusoand unusualodeprivationoheohasoundertakenoinohisolifeohaveoto beoreckoned."

14.3oInoKajalov.oJagdishoChando(2020)o 4oSCCo413 consideringotheofactsoofotheocase,oi.e.,o100%odisability, childobeingobedriddenoforolife,oheromentaloageobeingothat ofoaonine-month-oldoforolifeo-oaovegetativeoexistence,oheld thato"evenoafterotakingoaoconservativeoviewoofotheomatter anoamountopayableoforotheo`painoandosuffering'oofothis childoshouldobeoatoleastoRs.15,00,000/-."

14.4oInoAyushov.oRelianceoGeneraloInsuranceo(2022)o7 SCCo738orelyingoonoKajalo(supra)otheoamountoawardedoin `painoandosuffering'owasoenhancedotooRs.10,00,000.oThe childowhoohadosufferedotheoaccidentowasofiveoyearsooldoand theoCourtonotedoinoparagrapho2othato: "Asoperotheodischargeocertificate,otheoappellantoisonotoable toomoveobothohisolegsoandohadocompleteosensoryolossoinothe legs,ourinaryoincontinence,oboweloconstipationoandobed sores.oTheoappellantowasoagedoabouto5oyearsoasoonothe dateoofotheoaccident,ohenceohasolostohisochildhoodoandois dependentoonoothersoforohisoroutineowork."

14.5oInoLalano(supra)ocitedobyotheoclaimant-appellant,othe TribunaloawardedoRs.30,000/-owhichowasoenhancedoto Rs.40,000/-obyotheoHighoCourt.oConsideringotheofactothat theoappellantothereinohasosufferedoextensiveobrainoinjury awardedocompensationoundero`painoandosuffering'otoothe tuneoofoRs.3,00,000/-.

15.oKeepingoinoviewotheoabove-referredojudgments,othe injuriesosuffered,otheo'painoandosuffering'ocaused,oandothe life-long o nature o of o the o disability o afflicted o upon o the claimant-appellant,oandotheostatementoofotheoDoctoroas reproducedoabove,oweofindotheorequestoofotheoclaimant-appellant o to o be o justified o and o as o such, o award Rs.15,00,000/-ounderotheoheado'painoandosuffering',ofully consciousoofotheofactothatotheoprayeroofotheoclaimant-appellantoforoenhancementoofocompensationowasobyoaosum ofoRs.10,00,000/-,oweofindotheocompensationotoobeojust,ofair andoreasonableoatotheoamountosooawarded."

¶73Therefore,oinoviewoofotheoaboveoreferredotoojudgmentoand prolonged o hospitalization o and o nature o of o injuries o sustained o by o the appellant/claimant,othisoCourtodeemsoitoappropriateotoograntoaocompensation ofoRs.30,00,000/-ounderotheoheadoofo'PainoandoSuffering'.

¶74Havingoregardotootheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresent case,othisoCourtodeemsoitoappropriateotoofurtheroobserveothatoinosuchokindoof cases,otheopainoandosufferingoisonotoconfinedotootheoinjuredopersonoalone.oThe -*0-parents, family members, and near and dear ones of a person, who has suffered such functional disability endure almost the same degree of pain and anguish. When the injured is unable to sleep throughout the night, the near and dear ones also remain sleepless, sharing the agony in equal measure. In effect, they too suffer each day along with the injured. Indeed, the attendant and family members often experience even greater distress than the person who is actually suffering, for while the injured may be administered medicines or injections to obtain rest, the near and dear ones remain continuously anxious 24 hours a day about the health, future prospects, and medical condition of the injured. In these circumstances, justice demands that the compensation under the head of pain and suffering should also be granted to the parents, family members and nears and dears ones of the injured.

¶75However, considering that the total amount of compensation in the present case runs into crores, this Court has consciously restrained itself from granting compensation under the head of Pain and Suffering to the parents, family members, nears and dears ones, which should actually be granted if justice is to be done emphatically.

¶76Further perusal of the record shows that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation, special diet and marriage prospects is on lower side. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.

¶77In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments, the appeal i.e. FAO 1923 2008 filed by the -*8-appellant Insurance Company is #1 51 e# and the appeal i.e. FAO 3500 2008 filed by the appellant/claimant (Narinder Pal) is 399$6e#. The award dated 01.05.2008 of the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here under: -!'oN$' He3# C$5Be% 321$%oA63!#e# 1 Monthly Income Rs.40,000/ 2 Loss of future prospects Rs.16,000/ (40% of Rs.40,000/ ) (40%) 3 Annual Income Rs.6,72,000/ {(40,000 + 16,000) X 12) 4 Loss of earning due to Rs.6,72,000/ (100% of disability (100%) Rs.6,72,000) 5 Multiplier 17 6 Loss of future earning per Rs.1,14,24,000/ (Rs.6,72,000 X annum 17) 7 Medical Treatment in the Rs.6,00,00,000/ United States of America and future medical treatment 8 Medical Expenses Rs.37,17,844/ 9 Pain and Suffering Rs.30,00,000/ 10 Special Diet Rs.5,00,000/ 11 Transportation charges Rs.2,00,000/ 12 Attendant Charges Rs.1,22,40,000/ 13 Loss due to diminishing of Rs.6,00,000/ marriage prospects T$239oC$5Be% 321$% R '971*78178..@-DEDUCTION C$5Be% 321$%o363!#e#oCDo R '527007000@-24eoT!1C(%39 E%43%)e#oC$5Be% 321$% R '87*.78178..@-(R 'o971*78178..oMo527007000) -*9-

¶78So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in D3!3o-1%I4oNoD43!3oB3%G3!3oF 'o-4D35o-1%I4oF3!53 2019oACJo310* and R'F3991o3%#oO24e! oF-'oT3519oN3#(o-232eoT!3% B$!2 C$!B$!321$%o(2022)o5o-(B!e5eoC$(!2oC3 e o1007othe appellant/claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount.

¶79Since in the present case, the medical condition of the appellant was deteriorating and as on date, he requires medical treatment from United States of America, therefore, interest @ 9 percent per annum is to be bifurcated in two parts.

(3)o24eoe%43%)e#o35$(%2o$Eo)$5Be% 321$%o2$o24eo2(%eo$EoR ' 27*.78178..@- o (eA)9(#1%I o 24e o 5e#1)39 o 2!e325e%2 o 1% o U-A o 1'e R '*7007007000@-)o 4399o)3!!Do9oNo1%2e!e 2oE!$5o24eo#32eo$EoE191%Io$E 24eo)9315oBe2121$%o2199o24eo#32eo$Eo!e391<321$%'

(Co)o24eo35$(%2o$Eo)$5Be% 321$%o363!#e#o(%#e!o24eo4e3#o$E Me#1)39oT!e325e%2o1%oU-Ao3%#oE(2(!eo5e#1)39o2!e325e%2o1'e R '*7007007000@-oo 4399o)3!!Do9oNo1%2e!e 2oE!$5o24eo#32eo$EoE191%Io$E 24eo3BB91)321$%oE$!o3##121$%39oe"1#e%)eo1'eotiti'02'2020o2199o24eo#32e $Eo12 o!e391<321$%'

¶80The respondent–Insurance Company is directed to deposit fifty per cent (50%) of the total enhanced compensation amount, along with accrued interest, before the learned Tribunal within a period of forty five

(45) days as the first installment. The remaining fifty per cent (50%) of the enhanced amount, along with interest thereon, shall be deposited within a further period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced compensation amount along with interest to the appellant/claimant by crediting the same to his bank account immediately upon receipt of the deposited amount. The appellant/claimant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.

¶81Before parting with the case, this Court deems it necessary to observe that cases of the present nature are not merely disputes over figures, but solemn reminders of lives irreversibly altered by unforeseen misfortune. The appellant/claimant has lived with the consequences of the accident for more than two decades, enduring continuous pain, repeated medical interventions, and persistent uncertainty about his health and future. The purpose of awarding compensation in such cases is not to bestow the amount, but to acknowledge suffering, alleviate hardship and secure the livelihood and the dignity of a person, who has been compelled to live with permanent and continuing disability as far as possible.

¶82The Insurance Company(ies), in cases of this nature, is also expected to adopt a sympathetic and liberal approach in accepting the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant.

¶83Normally, in 10 out of 100 cases approximately, the Insurance Company is required to pay compensation. Otherwise, as per procedure, the vehicle is insured for a period of one year only, and the amount of premium deposited by the public at large, which is in lieu of the coverage granted by the Insurance Company, through out the year, if not claimed, is not refunded. This amount of public money goes to the exchequer of private insurance companies, and in the case of government insurance companies, it goes to the Government and they enjoy interest on that amount as well. Logically speaking in accident claims cases, the amount of premium paid by the public at large in cases where no claim is made, ultimately goes to the public only. It is not that the Insurance Company has to arrange this money separately in order to pay compensation in the cases like the present one. The amount of compensation paid by the Insurance Company in the present case would amount to merely taking out a drop of water from vast ocean.

¶84Courts, while discharging their statutory obligation, cannot remain oblivious to the human dimension underlying such claims. A just, fair, and reasonable compensation must therefore be one that responds not only to the injuries of the past, but also to the medical needs of the future, so that the appellant/claimant is not left to face a lifetime of suffering without adequate means of care. It is in this spirit of fairness, equity, and compassion that the present claim has been examined and determined by this Court.

¶85Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 21'01'202* ooooooooooooo ooo ooo(-UDEEPTIo-HARMA) Virender ooooooooo ooooo ooooJUDGE o Whether speaking/non speaking : Speaking oo oo oWhetheroreportableo ooo :oYes