Raghuvinder Kaur v. Richhpal Singh @ Balu and Ors

oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[1]o oINoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH 234 oooooooooo ooo o ooo FAO-2327-2007 Dateoofodecision:o09.07.2025 RaghuvinderoKaur ...Appellant Versus RichhpaloSingho@oBaluoandoothers ooooooo...Respondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMRS.oJUSTICEoSUDEEPTIoSHARMA Present: Mr.oB.S.oMamli,oAdvocateoforotheoappellant.o Mr.oSandeepoSuri,oAdvocateo fororespondentoNo.3-InsuranceoCompany.o **** SUDEEPTIoSHARMA,oJ.o(ORAL)

¶1Theopresentoappealohasobeenopreferredoagainstotheoawardodated

23.01.2006opassedoinotheoclaimopetitionofiledounderoSectiono166oofotheoMotor VehiclesoAct,o1988o(foroshorto'theoAct')obyotheolearnedoMotoroAccident ClaimsoTribunal,oYamunaoNagaroatoJagadhrio(foroshort,o'theoTribunal')ofor enhancementoofocompensationograntedotooclaimant/appellantoRaghuvinder KaurotootheotuneoofoRs.75,000/-oalongowithointeresto@o7.5o%operoannum,oon accountoofoinjuriesosustainedobyoheroinoaoMotoroVehicleoAccident,ooccurred ono27.09.2004.

¶2Asosoleoissueoforodeterminationoinotheopresentoappealoisoconfined tooquantumoofocompensationoawardedobyotheolearnedoTribunal,oaodetailed narrationoofotheofactsoofotheocaseoisonotorequiredotoobeoreproducedoandois skippedohereinoforotheosakeoofobrevity. SUBMISSIONS o OF o THE o LEARNED o COUNSELS o FOR o THE PARTIES

¶3Learned o counsel o for o the o appellant o contends o that o the oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[2]o compensationoaccessobyotheolearnedoTribunaloisoonotheoloweroside.oHeofurther contendsothatolearnedoTribunalohasonotoappliedomultiplierosystemowhile grantingotheocompensation.oHeofurtherocontends:-

i) Thatotheoclaimant/appellanto(minor)owaso14oyearsoageoatotheotimeoof accidentoandosheosufferedopermanentodisabilityotootheoextentoofo15o%odueoto accidentoinoquestion.

ii) Heofurtherocontendsothatotheocompensationograntedounderotheoheadoof futureolossotooincome,omedicaloexpenses,opainoandosuffering,oattendant chargesoandospecialodietoisoalsooonoloweroside.oTherefore,oheopraysothatothe presentoappealobeoallowedoandocompensationobeoenhanced,oasoperosettledolaw.

4.o Per o contra, o learned o counsel o for o the o respondent-Insurance Companyohasovehementlyoarguesoonotheolinesoofotheoawardoandosubmitsothat theoamountoofocompensationoasoassessedobyotheolearnedoTribunal,ohasorightly beenograntedotootheoclaimant/appellant.oTherefore,oheopraysoforodismissaloof theoappeal.

5.o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedothe wholeorecordoofothisocase. SETTLEDoLAWoOFoHON'BLEoSUPREMEoCOURToREGARDING GRANToOFoCOMPENSATIONoWITHoRESPECToTOoDISABILITYo

¶6Hon'bleotheoSupremeoCourtohasosettledotheolaworegardingogrant ofocompensationowithorespectotootheodisability.ooTheoApexoCourtoinocaseotitled asoRajoKumaroVs.oAjayoKumaroandoAnothero(2011)o1oSupremeoCourt Caseso343,ohasoheldoasounder:- Generaloprinciplesorelatingotoocompensationoinoinjuryocaseso

5.oTheoprovisionoofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988o('Act'ofor short)omakesoitoclearothatotheoawardomustobeojust,owhichomeans oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[3]o thatocompensationoshould,otootheoextentopossible,ofullyoand adequatelyorestoreotheoclaimantotootheopositionopriorotoothe accident.oTheoobjectoofoawardingodamagesoisotoomakeogoodothe lossosufferedoasoaoresultoofowrongodoneoasofaroasomoneyocanodo so,oinoaofair,oreasonableoandoequitableomanner.oTheocourtoor tribunaloshallohaveotooassessotheodamagesoobjectivelyoand excludeofromoconsiderationoanyospeculationoorofancy,othough someoconjectureowithoreferenceotootheonatureoofodisabilityoand itsoconsequences,oisoinevitable.oAopersonoisonotoonlyotoobe compensatedoforotheophysicaloinjury,obutoalsooforotheolossowhich heosufferedoasoaoresultoofosuchoinjury.oThisomeansothatoheoisoto beocompensatedoforohisoinabilityotooleadoaofullolife,ohisoinability tooenjoyothoseonormaloamenitiesowhichoheowouldohaveoenjoyed butoforotheoinjuries,oandohisoinabilityotooearnoasomuchoasohe usedotooearnoorocouldohaveoearned.o(SeeoC.K.oSubramoniaoIyer v.oT.oKunhikuttanoNair,oAIRo1970oSupremeoCourto376,oR.D. Hattangadiov.oPestoControlo(India)oLtd.,o1995o(1)oSCCo551oand Bakerov.oWilloughby,o1970oACo467).o

6.o Theoheadsounderowhichocompensationoisoawardedoin personaloinjuryocasesoareotheofollowingo:o Pecuniaryodamageso(SpecialoDamages)o

(i)oExpensesorelatingotootreatment,ohospitalization,omedicines, transportation, o nourishing o food, o and o miscellaneous expenditure.o

(ii)oLossoofoearningso(andootherogains)owhichotheoinjuredowould haveomadeohadoheonotobeenoinjured,ocomprisingo:o

(a)oLossoofoearningoduringotheoperiodoofotreatment;o

(b)oLossoofofutureoearningsoonoaccountoofopermanent disability.o

(iii) o Future o medical o expenses. o Non-pecuniary o damages (GeneraloDamages)o

(iv)oDamagesoforopain,osufferingoandotraumaoasoaoconsequence oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[4]o

(v)oLossoofoamenitieso(and/orolossoofoprospectsoofomarriage).o

(vi) o Loss o of o expectation o of o life o (shortening o of o normal longevity). In o routine o personal o injury o cases, o compensation o will o be awardedoonlyounderoheadso(i),o(ii)(a)oando(iv).oItoisoonlyoin serious o cases o of o injury, o where o there o is o specific o medical evidenceocorroboratingotheoevidenceoofotheoclaimant,othat compensationowillobeograntedounderoanyoofotheoheadso(ii)(b),

(iii),o(v)oando(vi)orelatingotoolossoofofutureoearningsoonoaccount of o permanent o disability, o future o medical o expenses, o loss o of amenitieso(and/orolossoofoprospectsoofomarriage)oandolossoof expectationoofolife.o xxx xxx xxx xxx

19.oWeomayonowosummariseotheoprinciplesodiscussedoaboveo:o

(i) o All o injuries o (or o permanent o disabilities o arising o from injuries),odoonotoresultoinolossoofoearningocapacity.o

(ii)oTheopercentageoofopermanentodisabilityowithoreferenceoto theowholeobodyoofoaoperson,ocannotobeoassumedotoobeothe percentageoofolossoofoearningocapacity.oTooputoitodifferently,othe percentageoofolossoofoearningocapacityoisonototheosameoasothe percentageoofopermanentodisabilityo(exceptoinoaofewocases, whereotheoTribunaloonotheobasisoofoevidence,oconcludesothat percentage o of o loss o of o earning o capacity o is o the o same o as percentageoofopermanentodisability).o

(iii)oTheodoctor owhootreatedoan oinjured-claimantoorowho examined o him o subsequently o to o assess o the o extent o of o his permanentodisabilityocanogiveoevidenceoonlyoinoregardothe extentoofopermanentodisability.oTheolossoofoearningocapacityois somethingothatowillohaveotoobeoassessedobyotheoTribunalowith referenceotootheoevidenceoinoentirety.o

(iv)oTheosameopermanentodisabilityomayoresultoinodifferent percentagesoofolossoofoearningocapacityoinodifferentopersons, dependingouponotheonatureoofoprofession,ooccupationoorojob, oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[5]o age,oeducationoandootherofactors.o

20.oTheoassessmentoofolossoofofutureoearningsoisoexplained belowowithoreferenceotootheofollowingo Illustrationo'A'o:oTheoinjured,oaoworkman,owasoagedo30oyears andoearningoRs.o3000/-operomonthoatotheotimeoofoaccident.oAs peroDoctor'soevidence,otheopermanentodisabilityoofotheolimboasoa consequenceoofotheoinjuryowaso60%oandotheoconsequential permanentodisabilityotootheopersonowasoquantifiedoato30%.oThe lossoofoearningocapacityoisohoweveroassessedobyotheoTribunaloas 15% o on o the o basis o of o evidence, o because o the o claimant o is continuedoinoemployment,obutoinoaolowerograde.oCalculationoof compensationowillobeoasofollows: oa)oAnnualoincomeobeforeotheoaccidento:oRs.o36,000/-.o b)oLossoofofutureoearningoperoannumo (15%oofotheoprioroannualoincome)o:o ooRs.o5400/-.o c)oMultiplieroapplicableowithoreferenceotooageo:o17o d)oLossoofofutureoearningso:o(5400oxo17)o:o Rs.o91,800/-o Illustrationo'B' o:oTheoinjuredowasoaodriveroagedo30oyears, earningoRs.o3000/-operomonth.oHisohandoisoamputatedoandohis permanentodisabilityoisoassessedoato60%.oHeowasoterminated fromohisojoboasoheocouldonoolongerodrive.oHisochancesoof gettingoanyootheroemploymentowasobleakoandoevenoifoheogotoany job,otheosalaryowasolikelyotoobeoaopittance.oTheoTribunal thereforeoassessedohisolossoofofutureoearningocapacityoaso75%. Calculationoofocompensationowillobeoasofollowso:o a)oAnnualoincomeopriorotootheoaccidento:oRs.o36,000/-o.o b)oLossoofofutureoearningoperoannumo (75%oofotheoprioroannualoincome)o :ooRs.o27000/-.o c)oMultiplieroapplicableowithoreferenceotooageo:o17o d)oLossoofofutureoearningso:o(27000oxo17)o:oRs.o4,59,000/- Illustrationo'C'o:oTheoinjuredowaso25oyearsoandoaofinaloyear Engineeringostudent.oAsoaoresultoofotheoaccident,oheowasoin comaoforotwoomonths,ohisorightohandowasoamputatedoandovision oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[6]o wasoaffected.oTheopermanentodisablementowasoassessedoas 70%.oAsotheoinjuredowasoincapacitatedotoopursueohisochosen career o and o as o he o required o the o assistance o of o a o servant throughoutohisolife,otheolossoofofutureoearningocapacityowasoalso assessedoaso70%.oTheocalculationoofocompensationowillobeoas followso:o a)oMinimumoannualoincomeoheowouldo haveogotoifohadobeenoemployedoasoano Engineero :oRs.o60,000/-o b)oLossoofofutureoearningoperoannumo (70%oofotheoexpectedoannualoincome)o :oRs.o42000/-o c)oMultiplieroapplicableo(25oyears)o ooooo :o18o d)oLossoofofutureoearningso:o(42000oxo18)o :oRs.o7,56,000/-o [Noteo:oTheofiguresoadoptedoinoillustrationso(A)oando(B)oare hypothetical.oTheofiguresoinoIllustrationo(C)ohoweveroareobased onoactualsotakenofromotheodecisionoinoArvindoKumaroMishra (supra)].

¶7Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoof oNationaloInsurance CompanyoLtd.oVs.oPranayoSethio&oOrs.o[(2017)o16oSCCo680]ohasoclarified theolaworelatingotooSectionso166,o163-Aoando168oofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct, 1988,oonotheofollowingoaspects:-

(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,oweothinkoitoseemlyotoofixoreasonable oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[7]o sums. o It o seems o to o us o that o reasonable o figures o on conventional o heads, o namely, o loss o of o estate, o loss o of consortiumoandofuneraloexpensesoshouldobeoRs.15,000, Rs.40,000oandoRs.15,000orespectively.ooTheoprincipleoof revisitingotheosaidoheadsoisoanoacceptableoprinciple.oBut theorevisitoshouldonotobeofact-centricooroquantum-centric. Weothinkothatoitowouldobeocondignothatotheoamountothat weohaveoquantifiedoshouldobeoenhancedoonopercentage basisoinoeveryothreeoyearsoandotheoenhancementoshould beoatotheorateoofo10%oinoaospanoofothreeoyears.ooWeoare disposed o to o hold o so o because o that o will o bring o in consistencyoinorespectoofothoseoheads."

¶8Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofo oErudhayaoPriyaoVs. StateoExpressoTran.oCorpn.oLtd.o2020oACJo2159,ohasoheldoasounder:- "o7.oThereoareothreeoaspectsowhichoareorequiredotoobeoexamined byous: o(a)otheoapplicationoofomultiplieroofo'17'oinsteadoofo'18';o Theoaforesaidoincreaseoofomultiplieroisosoughtoonothe basisoofoageoofotheoappellantoaso23oyearsorelyingoonothe judgmentoinoNationaloInsuranceoCompanyoLimitedov.oPranay SethioandoOthers,o2017oACJo2700o(SC).oInoparao46oofotheosaid judgment, o the o Constitution o Bench o effectively o affirmed o the multiplieromethodotoobeousedoasomentionedoinotheotableoinothe caseoofoSarlaoVermao(Smt)oandoOthersov.oDelhioTransport CorporationoandoAnother,o2009oACJo1298o(SC)o.oInotheoage groupoofo15-25oyears,otheomultiplierohasotoobeo'18'oalongowith factoringoinotheoextentoofodisability.o Theoaforesaidopositionoisonotoreallyodisputedobyolearned counseloforotheorespondentoStateoCorporationoand,othus,owe comeotootheoconclusionothatotheomultiplierotoobeoappliedoinothe caseoofotheoappellantohasotoobeo'18'oandonoto'17'.o

(b)oLossoofoearningocapacityoofotheoappellantowithopermanent disabilityoofo31.1%o oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[8]o Inorespectoofotheoaforesaid,otheoappellantohasoclaimed compensationoonowhatoisostatedotoobeotheosettledoprincipleoset outoinoJagdishov.oMohano&oOthers,o2018oACJo1011o(SC)oand SandeepoKhanujaov.oAtuloDandeo&oAnother,o2017oACJo979

(SC).oWeoextractobelowotheoprincipleosetooutoinotheoJagdish (supra)oinoparao8:o "8.oInoassessingotheocompensationopayableotheosettled principlesoneedotoobeoborneoinomind.oAovictimowhoosuffers aopermanentoorotemporaryodisabilityooccasionedobyoan accidentoisoentitledotootheoawardoofocompensation.oThe awardoofocompensationomustocoveroamongoothers,othe followingoaspects:o

(i) Pain,osufferingoandotraumaoresultingofrom theoaccident;o

(ii) oLossoofoincomeoincludingofutureoincome;o

(iii) Theoinabilityoofotheovictimotooleadoaonormal lifeotogetherowithoitsoamenities;o

(iv) Medicaloexpensesoincludingothoseothatothe victimomayobeorequiredotooundertakeoinofuture;oand

(v) Lossoofoexpectationoofolife."o [emphasis supplied]o Theoaforesaidoprincipleohasoalsoobeenoemphasizedoinoan earlier o judgment, o i.e. o the o Sandeep o Khanuja o case o (supra) opiningothatotheomultiplieromethodowasologicallyosoundoand legallyowelloestablishedotooquantifyotheolossoofoincomeoasoa resultoofodeathooropermanentodisabilityosufferedoinoanoaccident.o Inotheofactualocontoursoofotheopresentocase,oifoweoexamine theodisabilityocertificate,oitoshowsotheoadmission/hospitalization ono8ooccasionsoforovariousonumberoofodaysoovero1½oyearsofrom Augusto2011otooJanuaryo2013.oTheonatureoofoinjuriesohadobeen setooutoasounder:o "Natureoofoinjury:o oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[9]o

(i) compoundofractureoshaftoleftohumeruso

(ii) fractureobothobonesoleftoforearmo

(iii) compound o fracture o both o bones o right forearmo

(iv) fractureo3rd,o4tho&o5thometacarpalsoright hando

(v) subtrochantericofractureorightofemuro

(vi) fractureoshaftofemur

(vii) fractureobothobonesoleftoleg oWeohaveoalsooperusedotheophotographsoannexed tootheopetitionoshowingotheocurrentophysicalostateoofothe appellant,othoughoitoisostatedobyolearnedocounseloforothe respondentoStateoCorporationothatotheosameowasonotoon recordoinotheotrialocourt.oBeothatoasoitomay,othisoisothe positionoevenoafterotreatmentoandotheonatureoofoinjuries itselfoshowotheiroextent.oFurther,oitohasobeenoopinedoin parao13oofoSandeepoKhanujaocaseo(supra)othatowhile applyingotheomultiplieromethod,ofutureoprospectsoon advancementoinolifeoandocareeroareoalsootoobeotakenointo consideration.o Weoare,othus,ounequivocallyoofotheoviewothatothere isomeritoinotheocontentionoofotheoappellantoandothe aforesaidoprinciplesowithoregardotoofutureoprospects mustoalsoobeoappliedoinotheocaseoofotheoappellantotaking theopermanentodisabilityoaso31.1%.oTheoquantificationoof theosameoonotheobasisoofotheojudgmentoinoNational InsuranceoCo.oLtd.ocaseo(supra),omoreospecificallyopara 61(iii),oconsideringotheoageoofotheoappellant,owouldobe 50%oofotheoactualosalaryoinotheopresentocase.o

(c)oTheothirdoandotheolastoaspectoisotheointerestorate claimedoaso12%o Inorespectoofotheoaforesaid,otheoappellantohas wateredodownotheointerestorateoduringotheocourseoof oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[10]o hearingotoo9%oinoviewoofotheojudicialopronouncements includingoinotheoJagdish'socaseo(supra).oOnothisoaspect, onceoagain,othereowasonooseriousodisputeoraisedobyothe learnedocounseloforotheorespondentoonceotheoclaimowas confinedotoo9%oinolineowithotheointerestoratesoappliedoby thisoCourt. oCONCLUSIONo

8.oTheoresultoofotheoaforesaidoisothatorelyingoonothe settledoprinciples,otheocalculationoofocompensationobyothe appellant,oasosetooutoinoparao5oofotheosynopsis,owould haveotoobeoadoptedoasofollows: Heads Awarded Loss o of o earning o power Rs. (Rs.14,648oxo12oxo31.1/100 9,81,978/- Futureoprospectso(50oper Rs.4,90,98 centoaddition) 9/- Medical o expenses Rs.18,46,8 including o transport 64/- charges,onourishment,oetc. Loss o of o matrimonial Rs.5,00,00 prospects 0/- Lossoofocomfort,olossoof Rs.1,50,00 amenities o and o mental 0/- agonyo Painoandosuffering Rs.2,00,00 0/- Total Rs.41,69,8 31/- Theoappellantowould,othus,obeoentitledotootheocompensationoofoRs. 41,69,831/-oasoclaimedoalongowithosimpleointerestoatotheorateoofo9%oper oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[11]o ann!mofromotheo ateoofoapplicationotillotheo ateoofopa%ment. S1$$-1Do-)Wo;1G);D',GoG;),$oti<oP)',o),DoS9<<1;',GS

¶93heoEon:4%eoA$eFotio "toinocaseotit%edoaso .SoM!#a89(+a#o$%. R.oS!::!8a;%+"9oa'(oa')*+,#-o2024o/.'0o776ohe%doaso nde":- F1B.o+toisotoo"eonote othato"othotheoTri"!naloan otheo3i'ho)o!rt haveotakenotheo isa"ilit%os!ffere o"%otheoclaimant>appellantoto "eoato1//A.o7eofin onoo'ro!n otootakeoao ifferentoview.

¶13While acknowledging that `pain and suffering', as a concept escapes definition, we may only refer to certain authorities, scholarly as also judicial wherein attempts have been made to set down the contours thereof.

13.1 The entry recording the term `pain and suffering' in P. Ramanatha Iyer's Advanced Law Lexicon[9] reads as under:. "Pain and suffering. The term `Pain and suffering' mean physical discomfort and distress and include mental and emotional trauma for which damages can be recovered in an accident claim. This expression has become almost a term of art, used without making fine distinction between pain and suffering. Pain and suffering which a person undergoes cannot be measured in terms of money by any mathematical calculation. Hence the Court awards a sum which is in the nature of a conventional award [Mediana, The (1900) AC 113, 116]"

13.2 Eric Cassell[10], an American Physician and Bioethicist, defines `pain' not only as a sensation but also `as experience embedded in beliefs about causes and diseases and their consequences', and `suffering' as `the state of severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of person'.

13.3 In a recent article[11] published in the journal of the International Association for the Study of Pain, it has been recorded that there is no consensus on what exactly the concept of pain.related suffering includes, and it is often not precisely operationalised in empirical studies. The authors in their systematic review analysed 111 articles across a variety of disciplines such as bioethics, medical ethics, psycho.oncology, anaesthesiology, philosophy, sociology etc., we may refer to few of them:

13.3.1 Eugene V. Boisaubin[12], who is currently a Professor at the University of Texas, at Houston, in a 1989 article defined it as "Suffering oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[12]o is experienced by individual and arises from threats to the integrity of the individual as a complex social and psychological entity."

13.3.2 Andrew Edgar, who is currently a Reader Emeritus in Philosophy at Cardiff University at UK has defined, in a 2007 article suffering as an "experience of life never getting better, revealing in the sufferer only vulnerability, futility, and impotence."

13.3.3 Arthur W. Frank[13], Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology, University of Calgary in his well.known article "Can We Research Suffering?", published in 2001, observed that "at the core of suffering is the sense that something is irreparably wrong with our lives, and wrong is the negation of what could have been right. Suffering resists definition because it is the reality of what is not."

13.3.4 Daryl Pullman[14] who currently serves as University research Professor, Bioethics at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada in his 2002 article defined suffering as the "product of [physical], psychological, economic, or other factors that frustrate an individual in the pursuit of significant life projects."

13.4 The Judicial Studies Board, now known as the Judicial College in the United Kingdom, produced guidelines in 1992 to produce greater consistency of awards and make the judicial scale of values more easily accessible. They have been deduced from a study of past cases, examining the range of awards therein. The latest edition of these guidelines was published in 2021[15]. They record the diHculty of computing `pain and suffering' as under :. [15 See : Hassam and Anr. v. Rabot and Anr. (2024) UKSC 11] "It is widely accepted that making of an award of general damages for pain and suffering is a somewhat artificial task. It involves the Judge seeking to convert the pain and suffering of a given claimant into a monetary award which he or she considers to be reasonable by way of compensation. That is a diHcult task and one which has historically led to judges making widely varying awards of damages in respect of relatively comparable injuries a result which not only offends the principle of equality before law but results in unnecessary appeals and the incurring of additional cost, apart altogether from the burden that such appeals place on the Court's own scarce resources."

13.5 In determining non.pecuniary damages, the artificial nature of computing compensation has been highlighted in Heil v. Rankin [2001] QB 272, as referred to in Attorney General of St. Helena v. AB & Ors. Privy Council Appeal No. 0034 of 2018 as under:. "23. This principle of `full compensation' applies to pecuniary and non.pecuniary damage alike. But, as Dickson J indicated in the passage cited from his judgment in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, 83 DLR (3d) oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[13]o 452, 4757476, this statement immediately raises a problem in a situation where what is in issue is what the appropriate level of `full compensation' for non.pecuniary injury is when the compensation has to be expressed in pecuniary terms. There is no simple formula for converting the pain and suffering, the loss of function, the loss of amenity and disability which an injured person has sustained, into monetary terms. Any process of conversion must be essentially artificial. Lord Pearce expressed it well in H West & Son Ltd v. Shephard [1964] AC 326, 364 when he said: `The Court has to perform the diHcult and artificial task of converting into monetary damages the physical injury and deprivation and pain and to give judgment for what it considers to be a reasonable sum. It does not look beyond the judgment to the spending of the damages.'

¶24The last part of this statement is undoubtedly right. The injured person may not even be in a position to enjoy the damages he receives because of the injury which he has sustained. Lord Clyde recognised this in Wells v. Wells [1999] 1 AC 345, 394H when he said: `One clear principle is that what the successful plaintiff will in the event actually do with the award is irrelevant."

13.6 In the context of the United States, the most important piece of legal literature regarding `pain and suffering' is an article titled Valuing Life and Limb in Tort: Scheduling Pain and Suffering, published in the year 1989. Relevant extracts thereof read as under : "Pain and suffering and other intangible or non.economic losses are even more problematic. Physical pain and attendant suffering have for centuries being recognised as legitimate elements of damages, and "modern" tort law has seen a marked expansion of the rights to recover for forms of mental anguish. Some Courts have even permitted recovery for emotional trauma unaccompanied by physical injury, including derivative losses stemming from injuries to family members. The precise elements of compensable non. economic loss vary by jurisdiction. Pain and suffering may be used as a catch.all category for the jury's consideration of all non.pecuniary losses in a case of a nonfatal injury, subsuming other qualitative categories such as mental anguish and humiliation. More commonly, though, other non.economic elements . such as "loss of enjoyment of life" are accorded independent standing ..." Another important observation is that: "Whatever the categories of non.economic damages allowed in a given jurisdiction, the law provides no objective benchmarks valuing them. As one commentator notes, "Courts have usually been content to say that pain and oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[14]o suffering damages should amount to `fair compensation', or a `reasonable amount', `without any definite guide'."

13.7 Consideration of the above, underlines that while each discipline has its own conception of the meaning of pain/suffering, within its confines, the commonality that emerges is that a person's understanding of oneself is shaken or compromised at its very root at the hands of consistent suffering. In the present facts, it is unquestionable that the sense of something being irreparably wrong in life, as spoken by Frank (supra); vulnerability and futility, as spoken by Edgar, is present and such a feeling will be present for the remainder of his natural life.

¶14In respect of `pain and suffering' in cases where disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few decisions of this Court:.

14.1 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control India (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC

¶551It was observed : "17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for `pain and suffering' and for loss of amenities of life under Sl. No. 17, are claims for non.pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000 each under the two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs.1,00,000 against the claims of Rs.6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for `pain and suffering' and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non.pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reMect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of the accident he has been crippled and can move only on wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000 in respect of claim for `pain and suffering' and Rs.1,50,000 in respect of loss of amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.6,00,000 under the heads "`pain and suffering'" and "Loss of amenities of life". (Emphasis Supplied)

14.2 This Judgment was recently referred to by this Court in Sidram v. United Court Insurance Company Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439 reference was also made to Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (2003) 7 SCC 197 (irrespective of the percentage of disability incurred, the observations are instructive), wherein it was observed : "18. A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident through out his life and a feeling is developed that his no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[15]o compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned."

14.3 In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 considering the facts of the case, i.e., 100% disability, child being bedridden for life, her mental age being that of a nine.month.old for life . a vegetative existence, held that "even after taking a conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the `pain and suffering' of this child should be at least Rs.15,00,000/.."

14.4 In Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance (2022) 7 SCC 738 relying on Kajal (supra) the amount awarded in `pain and suffering' was enhanced to Rs.10,00,000. The child who had suffered the accident was five years old and the Court noted in paragraph 2 that : "As per the discharge certificate, the appellant is not able to move both his legs and had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary incontinence, bowel constipation and bed sores. The appellant was aged about 5 years as on the date of the accident, hence has lost his childhood and is dependent on others for his routine work."

14.5 In Lalan (supra) cited by the claimant.appellant, the Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/. which was enhanced to Rs.40,000/. by the High Court . Considering the fact that the appellant therein has suffered extensive brain injury awarded compensation under `pain and suffering' to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/..

15.o*eepin'oinoviewotheoa"ove>referre o#! 'ment,otheoin#!riesos!ffere ,othe Mpainoan os!fferin'Loca!se ,oan otheolife>lon'onat!reoofotheo isa"ilit% afflicte o!ponotheoclaimant>appellant,oan otheostatementoofotheo2octoroas repro !ce oa"ove,oweofin otheore&!estoofotheoclaimant>appellantotoo"e #!stifie oan oasos!ch, oawardo;s.134##4###@>o!n erotheohea oMpainoan s!fferin'L,of!ll%oconscio!soofotheofactothatotheopra%eroofotheoclaimantN appellantoforoenhancementoofocompensationowasoBBo(B/BB)o.o())o.08o15O (54o())o,G.o1800.oG=oB/B1o"%oaos!moofo-s.o1/,//,///@>,oweofin othe compensationotoo"eo#!st,ofairoan oreasona"leoatotheoamo!ntosooawar e . S1$$-1Do-)Wo;1-)$',Go$0o=);;')G1oP;0SP1+$S

¶10/n oG.o;a indranatho.s.o1.oSrini asoando)nother4o"#17(7) ;+;o(+i il)o97>o-oEon>4%eoA$eFotio "to5hi%eog"antingoco,$ensationotoothe c%ai,antoconside"edotheofactothatod eotootheoinA "iesoinotheo$e%!ico"egion-inA "edohaso4eco,eoi,$otento%eadingotoo%ossoofo,a"ita%o4%issoandothatohe oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[16]o shallobeorequiredotooundergoomultipleosurgeriesoinofuture.oTheorelevant paragraphsoNo.o24,o25oando26oofotheoaforesaidojudgmentoareoreproducedoas under: "24.oFromotheotestimonyoofothreeowitnesses,oitoisoestablished thatoasoaoresultoofoaccidentotheoappellantohadosufferedogrievous injuriesoinotheopelvicoregionoandoheohasobecomeoimpotent.oItois also o established o that o he o has o already o undergone o multiple surgeriesoandowillohaveotootakeotreatmentoinoinstitutesolike NIMSoforoatoleasto10oyears.

¶25o Unfortunately, o the o Motor o Accidents o Claims o Tribunal, Raichurodidonotogiveodueoweightageotootheoevidenceoproduced byotheoappellantoandoawardedomeagerocompensationoandothat tooobyooverlookingotheodocumentaryoevidenceoproducedoby appellantoregardingotheoexpensesoincurredobyohimoatoBhandari Hospital,oRaichuroandoNIMSoatoHyderabad.oTheoHighoCourt alsoofailedotooproperlyoanalyseoandoevaluateotheoevidence producedobyotheoappellantoandodidonotoadequatelyoenhanceothe compensationodeterminedobyotheoTribunal.

26.oInoouroview,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooRs.2,20,000/-ofor the o expenses o incurred o on o the o treatment o including hospitalization o charges, o mess o and o lodging o charges, transportation o etc.o For ofuture omedical o expenses oincluding hospitalization, o medicines, o attendant o charges o etc., o the appellantoisoentitledotooRs.6,00,000/.oForopain,osufferingoand trauma,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooaosumoofoRs.3,00,000/-.oFor oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[17]o lossoofoamenitiesoandoprospectsoofomarriage,otheoappellantois entitledotooRs.4,00,000/-.oForotheolossoofoexpectationoofolifeoand lossoofofutureoearnings,otheoappellantoisoentitledotooaosumoof Rs.5,00,000/-."

¶11Inotheocaseoinoland,oaoperusaloofotheoawardorevealsothatothe appellant-claimantowasoagedoapproximatelyo14oyearsoatotheotimeoofoaccident, andobothotheopartiesodoonotodisputeotheosameobeforeothisoCourt.oItoisofurther revealsofromotheorecordothatoclaimant/appellantohasosustainedomultiple grievousoinjuriesoandosteelorodohadobeenoinsertedoinobothoofotheolegsowhich requiringoherotooconfineotoobedoandofurtherorequiredohelperoforosome indefiniteoperiod.oAoperusaloofotheoawardoasowelloasodisabilityocertificate Ex.P-35ofurtheroshowothatotheoclaimant/appellantohasosufferedopermanent disabilityotootheoextentoofo15o%.

¶12Assessingotheopecuniaryolossosufferedobyotheoclaimant/appellant presentsoinherentodifficulties,ogivenothatosheowasonotoengagedoinoanyogainful employmentoatotheotimeoofotheoaccident.oHowever,otheoprinciplesogoverning compensationounderotheoAct,oemphasizeothatoassessmentoofocompensation mustobeomadeonotoonlyowithoreferenceotooactualofinancialolossobutoalso keepingoinoviewotheopermanentodeprivationoofoearningocapacity,otheophysical andopsychologicalosuffering,oandotheocompleteoalterationoofotheoclaimant's lifeotrajectory.

¶13Givenothatotheoclaimant,opriorotootheoaccident,owasoaominorowith anoopen-endedofuture,otheonatureoofoherodisabilityohasoeffectivelyoforeclosed numerous o career o opportunities o and o significantly o diminished o her oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[18]o

¶14InoFAO-4284-2006,otitledoasoParveshoVs.oSatbiroandoothers, thisoCourt,owhileodealingowithoaocaseoinvolvingoao16-year-oldoschool-going minor,oassessedotheonotionaloincomeoato₹10,000operomonth.oTheorelevant portionoofotheojudgmentoisoreproducedoasounder:- "12.oReferenceoatothisostageocanobeomadeotooaojudgmentoofoHon'ble theoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoinoaocaseoofoV.oMekalaovs.oM.oMalathioand anr,o2014(11)oSCCo178owhereinoinoaomotoroaccident,otheovictimowasoa studentoandobonesoofoherobotholegsofractured.oHon'bleotheoSupreme CourtoassessedoheronotionalomonthlyoincomeoatoRs.10,000/-oand awardedohero50%ofutureoprospects.oSheowasoawardedoRs.3olacsounder theoheadoLossoofoenjoymentoofolifeoandomarriageoprospects.oSheowas awardedoRs.o2olacsounderotheoheadopainoandosufferingoandoRs.o2olacs undertheoheadolossoofoamenityoandoattendantocharges.oTheorelevant extractoofotheojudgmentoisoreproducedoasounder:- "17.oTheofactothatotheoappellantowasoaobrilliantostudentoatotheotimeoof theoaccidentoshouldoalsoobeotakenointooconsiderationowhileoawarding compensation o to o her. o Therefore, o taking o Rs.6,000/- o as o monthly notional oincome o by othe o Tribunal ofor o the opurpose o of oawarding compensationounderothisoheadoisotooomeageroanoamount.oTheolearned counsel o appearing o for o the orespondent oNo.2 o contended othat othe appellantocanostillofinishoheroeducationoandofindoemploymentoand therefore, o there o is o no o necessity o to o enhance o the o amount o of compensation o under o the o head o of o 'loss o of o income' o and o 'future prospects'. o It o is o pertinent o to o reiterate o here o that o the o claimant/ appellant o has o undergone o and o undergoing o substantial o pain o and sufferingodueotootheoaccidentowhichohasorenderedobothoherolegs dysfunctional.oThisohasoreducedotheoscopeoofoherofutureoprospects includingoheromarriageosubstantially.oMoreover,oaotortfeasoroisonot entitledotoodictateotheotermsoofotheoclaimants-appellantsocareeroasohas beenoheldobyotheoKarnatakaoHighoCourtoinotheocaseoofoK.oNarsimha Murthyov.oTheoManager,oOrientaloInsuranceoCompanyoLtdoandoAnr. oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[19]o ILRo2004oKARNATAKAo2471,otheorelevantoparagraphoofowhichoreads asounder: "41.o….oFurther,oitoneedsotoobeoemphasizedothatoitoisonototheorightoof theotortfeasorooroaopersonowhoohasotakenooverotheoliabilityoofothe tortfeasoroinotermsoofoandounderotheoActotoodictateothatotheoinjured personoshouldodoosomeootherowork,omanualoorootherwise,oitodoesonot matter,omayobeowithopainoandodiscomfort,oinoorderotoominimizeohisoor itsoliability.oSuchoinsistenceoisountenableoinolawoandoifosuchoisothe case,oitowouldoviolateobasicohumanorightsoofotheoinjuredoperson.oIn thisocase,otheoappellantoisoreducedotoosuchoaostateothatoheoisounableoto dooanyowork,omanualootherwise,owithoutosubjectingohimselfotoopain andosuffering,oagonyoandodiscomfort.oInoanoaccident,oifoaomanois disabledoforoaoworkowhichoheowasodoingobeforeotheoaccident,othatohe hasonootalents,oskill,oexperience orotrainingoforoanythingoelseoandoheoisounableotoofindoanyowork, manualooroclerical,osuchoaomanoforoallopracticalopurposesohasolostoall earningocapacityoheopossessedobeforeoandoheoisorequiredotoobe compensatedoonotheobasisoofototaloloss.oInoreachingothisoconclusionowe mayoderiveosupportofromotheojudgmentsoinoDanielsov.oSiroRobertoMc AlpineoandoSonsoLimitedoandoBlairov.oFJCoLilleyo(Marine)oLimited. Secondly,otheophysicaloincapacityotooearnoincomeosustainedobyothe appellantoisonototemporary,obutopermanentoandocompleteoasoper ExhibitoP.o43.oThirdly,oitocannotobeosaidothatosinceotheoappellantohas sustainedoonlyo54%opermanentophysicalodisabilityoinorespectoofothe wholeobodyoasoperoPW.o3,otheoCourtoshouldotakeointooaccount functionalodisabilityoalsooato54%oonlyowhileoassessingotheolossoof earningocapacity.oSuchohypothesisodoesonotostandotooreasononorocanoit be o accepted o as o valid o in o terms o of o law. o An o injured o person o is compensatedoforotheolossowhichoheoincursoasoaoresultoofophysical injuryoandonotoforophysicaloinjuryoitself.oInootherowords,ocompensation isogivenoonlyoforowhatoisolostodueotooaccidentoinotermsoofoanoequivalent inomoneyoinsofaroasotheonatureoofomoneyoadmitsoforotheolossosustained. Inoanoaccident,oifoaopersonolosesoaolimbooroeyeoorosustainsoanoinjury, oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[20]o theoCourtowhileocomputingodamagesoforotheolossoofoorgansoorophysical injury,odoesonotovalueoaolimbooroeyeoinoisolation,obutoonlyovalues totalityoofotheoharmowhichotheolossohasoentailedotheolossoofoamenities ofolifeoandoinflictionoofopainoandosuffering:otheolossoofotheogoodothings ofolife,ojoysoofolifeoandotheopositiveoinflictionoofopainoandodistress."

18.o Further,oitohasobeenoheldoinotheocaseoofoReshmaoKumario(supra) thatocertainorelevantofactorsoshouldobeotakenointooconsiderationowhile awardingocompensationounderotheoheadoofofutureoprospectoofoincome. Theorelevantoparagraphoreadoasounder: "27.oTheoquestionoasotootheomethodologyorequiredotoobeoappliedofor determinationoofocompensationoasoregardsoprospectiveolossoofofuture earnings,ohowever,oasofaroasopossibleoshouldobeobasedoonocertain principles.oAopersonomayohaveoaobrightofutureoprospect;oheomight haveobecomeoeligibleotoopromotionoimmediately;othereomightohave beenochancesoofoanoimmediateopayorevision,owhereasoinoanotherothe natureoofoemploymentowasosuchothatoheomightonotohaveocontinuedoin service;ohisochanceoofopromotion,ohavingoregardotootheonatureoof employmentomayobeodistantoororemote.oItois,otherefore,odifficultoforoany courtotoolayodownorigidotestsowhichoshouldobeoappliedoinoallosituations. Thereoareodivergentoviews.oInosomeocasesoitohasobeenosuggestedothat someosortoofohypothesesooroguessoworkomayobeoinevitable.oThatomay beoso."o

19.o Therefore,oinotheolightoofotheoprinciplesolaidodownoinothe aforesaidocase,oitowouldobeojustoandoproperoforothisoCourt,oand keepingoinomindoheropastoresultsoweotakeoRs.10,000/-oasoheromonthly notional o income o for o computation o of o just o and o reasonable compensationounderotheoheadoofolossoofoincome.oFurther,otheoHigh Courtohasofailedotootakeointooconsiderationotheofutureoprospectsoof incomeobasedoonotheoprinciplesolaidodownobyothisoCourtoinocatenaoof casesoreferredotoosupra.oTherefore,otheoappellantoisojustifiedoin seekingoforoenhancementounderothisoheadoasowelloandoweoholdothatothe claimant-oappellantoisoentitledotoo50%oincreaseounderothisoheadoasoper theoprincipleolaidodownobyothisoCourtoinotheocaseoofoSantoshoDevi oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[21]o (supra).oTheorelevantoparagraphoreadsoasounder: "13.oInoSarlaoVerma'socaseo(supra),oanotherotwooJudgeoBench consideredovariousofactorsorelevantoforodeterminingotheocompensation payable o in o cases o involving o motor o accidents, o noticed o apparent divergenceoinotheoviewsoexpressedobyothisoCourtoinodifferentocases, referredotoolargeonumberoofoprecedentsoincludingotheojudgmentsoin U.P.oSRTCov.oTrilokoChandrao(1996)o4oSCCo362,oNanceov.oBritish ColumbiaoElectricoRailwayoCompanyoLtd.o1951oACo601,oDaviesov. PowelloDuffrynoAssociatedoCollieriesoLtd.o1942oACo601oandomadeoan attemptotoolimitotheoexerciseoofodiscretionobyotheoTribunalsoandothe HighoCourtsoinotheomatteroofoawardoofocompensationobyolayingodown straightjacketoformulaounderodifferentoheadings,osomeoofowhichoare enumeratedobelow:o

(i)oAdditionotooincomeoforofutureoprospectsoInoSusammaoThomasothis Courtoincreasedotheoincomeobyonearlyo100%,oinoSarlaoDixitothe incomeowasoincreasedoonlyobyo50%oandoinoAbatioBezbaruahothe incomeowasoincreasedobyoaomereo7%.oInoviewoofotheoimponderables andouncertainties,oweoareoinofavouroofoadoptingoasoaoruleoofothumb,oan additionoofo50%oofoactualosalaryotootheoactualosalaryoincomeoofothe deceased o towards o future o prospects, o where o the o deceased o had o a permanentojoboandowasobelowo40oyears.o(Whereotheoannualoincomeois inotheotaxableorange,otheowordso"actualosalary"oshouldobeoreadoas "actualosalaryolessotax").oTheoadditionoshouldobeoonlyo30%oifotheoage ofotheodeceasedowaso40otoo50oyears.oThereoshouldobeonooaddition, whereotheoageoofotheodeceasedoisomoreothano50oyears.oThoughothe evidenceomayoindicateoa odifferentopercentageoof oincrease,oitois necessaryotoostandardiseotheoadditionotooavoidodifferentoyardsticks beingoappliedoorodifferentomethodsoofocalculationobeingoadopted. Whereotheodeceasedowasoself-employedoorowasoonoaofixedosalary (withoutoprovision oforoannual oincrements,oetc.),otheocourtsowill usuallyotakeoonlyotheoactualoincomeoatotheotimeoofodeath.oAodeparture therefromoshould obeo madeo onlyoin orareo and oexceptional ocases involvingospecialocircumstances.oTherefore,otakingobothotheoaspects oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[22]o intooaccount,otheototaloamountoofocompensationounderothisoheadois calculated o as o Rs.22,68,000/- o [(Rs.10,000/-x o 70/100 o + o 10,000 o x 70/100oxo50/100)oxo12oxo18].

20.oTheocompensationounderotheoheadopaino&osufferingoandomental agonyowasoawardedobyotheoHighoCourtoafterorecordingoconcurrent findingowithotheoawardopassedobyotheoTribunal.oHowever,otheocourts belowohaveonotorecordedotheonatureoofotheopermanentodisablement sustainedobyotheoappellant,owhileooawardingoRs.1,00,000/-ounderothis headowhichoisotooomeageroanoamountoandoisocontraryotootheojudgment ofoR.D.oHattangadioandoGovindoYadavocaseso(supra).oTheorelevant paragraphsoofoGovindoYadavocaseoreadoasounder: "25.o TheocompensationoawardedobyotheoTribunaloforopain,osuffering andotraumaocausedodueotootheoamputationoofolegowasomeager.oItoisonot inodisputeothatotheoappellantohadoremainedoinotheohospitaloforoa periodoofooverothreeomonths.oItoisonotopossibleoforotheotribunalsoand theocourtsotoomakeoaopreciseoassessmentoofotheopainoandotrauma sufferedobyoaopersonowhoseolimboisoamputatedoasoaoresultoofoaccident. Evenoifotheovictimoofoaccidentogetsoartificialolimb,oheowillosufferofrom differentokindsoofohandicapsoandosocialostigmaothroughoutohisolife. Therefore,oinoallosuchocases,otheotribunalsoandotheocourtsoshouldomake aobroadoguessoforotheopurposeoofofixingotheoamountoofocompensation.

26.o Admittedly,oatotheotimeoofoaccident,otheoappellantowasoaoyoung manoofo24oyears.oForotheoremainingolife,oheowillosufferotheotraumaoof notobeingoableotoodoohisonormalowork.oTherefore,oweofeelothatoendsoof justiceowillobeometobyoawardingohimoaosumoofoRso1,50,000oinolieuoof pain,osufferingoandotraumaocausedodueotootheoamputationoofoleg." Therefore,ounderothisoheadotheoamountoawardedoshouldobeoenhanced tooRs.2,00,000/-oasotheoDoctor-PW2ohasoopinedothatoatotheotimeoof walkingowithosupportoofocrutches,otheoclaimant-appellantowillobe sufferingopainopermanently.oTherefore,ounderothisoheadoitohasotoobe enhancedofromoRs.1,00,000/-otooRs.2,00,000/-.

21.o Theolossoofoamenityoandoattendantochargesoawardedobyothe courtsobelowoatoRs.1,00,000/-oisoalsootooomeageroanoamountoasothe oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[23]o appellantohasopermanentlyolostoheroamenityoofobothotheolegs.oForothe purposeoofowalking,osquatting,orunningoandoalsoostudyingothroughout herolifeoandoparticularly,oatotheoadvancedoage,osheowillobeorequiring theoattendantoforogivingoassistanceotooattendotheonature'socalloand also o at o the o time o of o sitting o or o moving o around. o Therefore, o the compensation o at o this o head o is o required o to o be o enhanced o from Rs.1,00,000/-otooRs.2,00,000/-obasedouponotheoprincipleolaidodownoby thisocourtoinoGovindoYadavocaseo(supra),otheorelevantoparagraphoof whichoreadsoasounder:- "27.oTheocompensationoawardedobyotheoTribunaloforotheolossoof amenitiesowasoalsoomeagre.oItocanoonlyobeoaomatteroofoimaginationoas toohowotheoappellantowillohaveotooliveoforotheorestoofohisolifeowithoone artificialoleg.oTheoappellantocanobeoexpectedotooliveoforoatoleasto50 years.oDuringothisoperiodoheowillonotobeoableotooliveolikeoaonormal humanobeingoandowillonotobeoableotooenjoyolife.oTheoprospectsoofohis marriageohaveoconsiderablyoreduced.oTherefore,oitowouldobeojustoand reasonableotooawardohimoaosumoofoRso1,50,000oforotheolossoof amenitiesoandoenjoymentoofolife."

22.oTheoamountoofocompensationoawardedounderotheoheadoofo'Lossoof enjoymentoofolifeoandomarriageoprospects'oatoRs.2,00,000/-oisototally inadequateosinceoheromarriageoprospectohasosubstantiallyoreduced andoonoaccountoofopermanentodisablementosheowillobeodeprivedoof enjoymentoofolife.oTherefore,oitowouldobeojustoandoproperotooenhance theocompensationofromoRs.2,00,000/-otooRs.3,00,000/-.oInosoofaroas, purchaseoofocrutchesoperiodically,oitowouldobeojustoandoproperoto awardoaosumoofoRs.50,000/-."

13.oInoviewoofotheoprinciplesosetoforthoinotheoV.oMekala'so(supra)oand consideringohisopastoresults,oitoisojustoandoappropriateoforothisoCourt toofixohisonotionalomonthlyoincomeoatoRs.10,000/-"

¶15Inoviewoofotheoabove,oreferredotoojudgmentoandopeculiarofactsoof thisocaseoandofurtherobecauseoofotheoaccidentoappellant/claimantocouldonot pursueoherocarrier/educationoqualificationsoeffectively,oinotheointerestoof oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[24]o justice,oitowouldobeoappropriateotoofixoheronotionaloincomeoasoRs.5,000/-oper month.

¶16AoperusaloofotheoawardofurtherorevealsothatotheolearnedoTribunal hasonotoappliedomultiplierosystemowhileocalculatingotheocompensationoasoper settledolaw.oMoreover,otheocompensationograntedoforopainoandosuffering, attendantocharges,ospecialodiet,olossoofoamenitiesoofolifeoareoonoloweroside andonoocompensationowasograntedoforotransportationocharges.oTherefore,othe awardorequiresoindulgenceoofothisoCourt. RELIEF

¶17InoviewoofotheolawolaidodownobyotheoHon'bleotheoSupremeoCourt inotheoaboveoreferredotoojudgments,otheopresentoappealoisoallowed.oTheoaward datedo23.01.2006oisomodifiedoaccordingly.oTheoappellant-claimantoisoheld entitledotoograntoofocompensationoasoperotheocalculationsomadeohere-under:- Sr. Heads CompensationoAwarded No. 1 Income Rs.5,000/- 2 Lossoofofutureoprospectso40% Rs.2,000/-oo(40%oofo5000) 3 AnnualoIncome Rs.84,000/-o(7,000ox12) 4 Lossoofofutureoearningopero Rs.12,600/-o(15%oofo annumo(15o%odisability) 84000) 5 Multipliero18 Rs.2,26,800/-(12,600x18) 6 PainoandoSufferingso Rs.70,000/- 7 Specialodiet Rs.30,000/- 8 Medicaloexpenses Rs.24,000/- 9 Transportationocharges Rs.30,000/- 10 AttendantoCharges Rs.20,000/- 11 Marriageoprospectsoandolossoofo Rs.80,000/- oFAO-2327-2007 oooo[25]o 12 TotaloCompensation Rs.4,80,800/- 13 Amountoawardedobyotheo Rs.75,000/- Tribunal 14 EnhancedoAmount Rs.4,05,800/-o(4,80,800-75,000)

¶18Soofaroasotheointerestopartoisoconcerned,oasoheldobyoHon'ble SupremeoCourtoinoDaraoSingho@oDharaoBanjaraoVs.oShyamoSinghoVarma 2019oACJo3176oandoR.VallioandoOthersoVS.oTamiloNanduoStateoTransport Corporationoo(2022)o5oSupremeoCourtoCaseso107,otheoappellant-claimantois grantedotheointeresto@o9%operoannumoonotheoamountofromotheodateoofofiling ofoclaimopetitionotillotheodateoofoitsorealization.

¶19Theorespondent-InsuranceoCompanyoisodirectedotoodepositothe enhancedoamountoofocompensationoalongwithointerestowithotheoTribunal withinoaoperiodoofotwoomonthsofromotheoreceiptoofocopyoofojudgment.ooThe Tribunal o is o further odirected oto o disburseo theo amounto ofo compensation alongwith o interest o in o the o account o of o the o claimant/appellant. o The claimant/appellantoisodirectedotoofurnishoherobankoaccountodetailsotoothe Tribunal.o

¶20TheoInsuranceoCompanyoisoherebyodirectedotoodisburseothe currentoscheduledofeeotooMr.oSandeepoSuri,oAdvocateowithinoaoperiodoofo20 daysofromotheodateooforeceiptoofotheocopyoofothisojudgment,oinoviewoofothe orderodatedo18.07.2024opassedoinoFAOoNo.1682oofo2007obyothisoCourt.o

¶21Pendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oalsoostandodisposedoof.

09.07.2025 (SUDEEPTIoSHARMA) Yogesh ooooooooooooooJUDGE Whetherospeaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whetheroreportable:- Yes/No