High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO/1923/2008dismissed

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Narinder Pal Singh And ORS.

2026-01-21Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma71 pages

United India Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs.

Narinder Pal Singh and others ......Respondents

Narinder Pal Singh ......Appellant Vs.

Subash and others ......Respondents !"# $%& ' ' !$%$(%)# $%& ' ' * Uploaded on: 23.01.2026

& + , -'

- - - 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).

****

- -

Vide 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.

The 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.

The 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. -

- 4.

The 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.

Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation. 6.

From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

"# !

$%& '(&)&'(*+ ( '*''* , -"

)

". ( !

" .

# -

. 7.

After 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.

- --- ,

-, - 8.

The 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. 9.

, 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

* appeal i.e. FAO 1923 2008 filed by the Insurance Company be allowed and the appeal i.e. FAO 3500 2008 filed by the appellant/claimant be dismissed. 10.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 11.

Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the award dated 01.05.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal:

/ ( $''

+ 0 .

1 "

2 3

4 5 % ( '*''* ! (' .

. 4&'7&8&+9-:) $.; ;

;$.;

5 <# " 5 $ $%&'(&)&(*+

# "

. " . ! %." .

6 "! =

. .

0 " ".

, !

0 ;

* $ ; .

4 5 (

% ;. 5 5 %

". !

* 0

>% ;

( ? ! !

" 5

"6 !

. ;

0 ! # . 6 "1?#.

, -")

( '*''* !

! !

;

- 6

" ? . ;

!. 4&'7&8&+9-: !

4 5 "6 ".

5 @ ! $%&'(-&)&'(*+ 0. .

!2 !

. . ;

0 ! !

" *"! ! !.

! ! " !

;

" . 1?#.

, -")

" .

! .

6 "

( $'

9 0 ! 0

0 . .

%." #

" 6 5 " A ?

? $

2 !

!2" ! 2 6

. ".

!20 .

0 ? $

. !

; ;

2 "

. !

: 0

" , 0 ")

0 *

% $%&'(&)&'(*+ .

(

> ? ! !

(" # 6 " 6 .

0 .

? $

"? $

"? .

2#@ .

, 0 " )

" %

-(+B,#B'(&'- . !

** '*''( !

6*(- ")

*-*'

* ''B,#B*''*&'( 0

( '*''*"

? .

( ! !

( 6 !

( 0 . !

< !!

( ; ! .

5" !

,0)

" .

;

. "?

/ 12.

A 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. 13.

The 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.

14.

Additionally, 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. 15.

It 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. 16.

The 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 %123 -43!53 "'

6 %#13 (!3%) $'

,2#'7 -

!1 .0'

The relevant extract of the %123 -43!538 case (supra) is reproduced as under:

**<

% $ ! =

;

! 56$0

0 ;

" ! ! ! !

$. 2

! .

&2 ! .

E!" !

F ;

(9)1%3 !%3%# "'

$3:(15 ;3"1!

!(<

- *.*. $ G

>?.

. .

; !

< ! !

0 !

! ! !

"1 "'

153)439 = - &

1" &

!1 >I (emphasis supplied)"

17.

In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The conclusions drawn are sound, well reasoned, and supported by the evidence on record. Consequently, the findings of the learned Tribunal do not call for any interference and are hereby affirmed. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the contention of Insurance Company regarding the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 or occurrence of the accident to be not proved. The said contention is, therefore, rejected. As a natural corollary, the issue of liability also has been correctly appreciated and adjudicated by learned Tribunal, and no inference is warranted on that count. Hence, this argument also stands rejected.

- - ?

- ? - -

7 - ,- -,@ , -- ,,@ , 18.

A 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.

19.

It 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. *. 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:

;2 !

! 6

0 ! !

" .

. 00 ! .

. !

1 .

0 ! " 9'9*'*'

/ 20.

Pursuant thereto, the learned Tribunal submitted its report dated 21.04.2023 after evaluating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. The report dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned MACT, Jalandhar, is reproduced as under:

? ! ! !"? .

%J! % $! 9 9> *+'+*'**

:'+*'**

%F! ) 6 ;

%F! ! K %

% $?

" '>'**'*'

$5& :9-&$??&*'*' !

!L 5 6 $

0 ! *+'-*''-" . .

'9*''70 ? $

16 +*(*''7 .

%J! !K %

% $ 16(9''*''7?

. 2 !

! 6

. " .

;

0 ! ! .

" .

$ 5 . ! $5B-9'B*'** K " !

B " < .

%J! % $<

16(9''*''7"

. .

*('**'*("

. * ? "

2 >% 2 # + 2 !

G 2 &9-- 5#?# ?

* 2 &9-9

# 2 &9-:

, $ 2 &9->

2 &9-7

, D4

2 &9-+

2 &99'

,6 6 2 &99 2 &9:

2 &9:*

2 &9:(

,# C 2 &9:- $ !

,C.

2 &9:9 6 !

# H +I 2 &9::2 &9>- # K

2 &9>92 &9>> $

$ $ 2 &9>72 &97:

?0 2# 2 &97> $

2 &9772 & ':-

" !

K 2 & ':9 # 5#? *9'7*'*

2 & ':: # 5#? -'7*'

+ 2 & ':>

,0 6 "5 5 2 & ':7

,6; ,

"544 "5, HA 6I 2 & ':+

,D !

"544 "5, HA 6I 2 & '>'

2 & '>

( '*'*'

0 2 & '>*2 & 9-: 5 !

"5#? "

2 & 9-> ,

$ "A 2 & 9-7 $

2 & 9-+ , !

*'** 2 & 99'

K% 0 , " ?5 ")

2 & 2 & :+9

"5 !

" K

AB:9&4 ?

6 2 & :+:

,$ %

$ %

"$ 5 "$ 2 & :+> $ , ;

0 "

2 & :+7 # '

**'** !

L !

2 & :++ 8&

2 & >''

, 8&

2 & >'

, 8&

2 & >'* ,

'(*'** 2 & >'( $

?0# ;. *'* &** 2 & >'-2 & >': 5 4 ( " ? $

2 #&* , D ,

" # ; % ? 0 6 L K .

G 2#*B

'-*'*( 2#*B

2#*B C *'*'&*

2#*B

;

0 2#*B $ AB:9&4?

6 - ?

( '*''*

! " .

'9*''70

!L 5 6 $

0 ! *+'-*''-" . .

'9*''70

+*(*''7 .

%J! ! K%

% $ 16(9''*''7

. 2 !

! 6

. " .

; 0 ! ! .

" .

? "

2 >B6B

! !

! "

B ; &+ # !2

. .;

B ;.

'*''*

*"'''B& 5 *'

' % 2 !

B . .

! " .

B! !

" 2 2!

0 !

2 !

&2 #9'

; 2 4 5#1)39

1%)1#%239 AB%#12(!

B!$"# $% !)$!# CD )93153%2& > ? "

! !

2 # **"

>"7--B&".

'9*''7"

0 !

! ! !

6 L $

2 ! % !

2 ! 2 !

! ! .%.

2 & 2 < 2 !

53 6 " < ."

! 0

! ! "

! .

! !

2 #**"

>"7--B&6 "!

. ! ;

! ; ". 2 #**"

>"7--B& #1)39

B4D 1)39 )$%#121$% $E )93153%2&

$ 2 ".

. !! 4

= " $ .

; !

!! $

2 >" 2 "

$ . .

! 2 "

2 !

<< ! . %.".

L $

"< . ; . .

0 ! .

* '(*'*(

". .

**'(*'*("

. < .! ; . " $

$ .

+ .

! 2 & ':> !

, 0 6 " 5 $ H I" $ "

" )

>&7 2 " "

6 2 & ':7 !

,6; ,

"544

5,HA 6I ,5 <HA 6I" ,

! " 6 2 %

" )

! !" .

" .

! "!

,D !

"544

5,HA 6I ,5 HA 6I" $ " 6 2 %

. !! 2 & ':+ 0

! ; !

2 & '>'0

?5#" $ 2 & '> " .

! 0

! !

2 & 9-+" .

! ! ''M ! "

! !"

*'** 2 & 99' !

% 0,

" !? 5 %

" . ! !

! %

J > & 7 !

" "

! 6

!!!

! " 0

,$ %

% 0,

"$ %

"$ "$ 2 & :+:

, ;

0 " 4

)

2 & :+>".

! ! A 6

< !

. ! ?

' 6 !

L $

"! " !

2 "

0 !

! .

. . !

!6 " !

?5#"

$ " ?5 %

" )

" %

" 6 2 %

" ! !

$ %

" $ 5 "

$ ",$ %

"..

! !

! " " "

6 . $ 5 , / !

C KC " "!== ". "

0 !

! ?

! .

0 $ .

". ( '*''*0 . ! ! 0

)

H 4 I" L

0 .

! "

" " " ! "

! 0 " !

! "

! .

. < 0 !== ".

" !

2 &>B6B

* &+ # !2 . ! B ; .

*''*

# *"'''B& 0

B ;

0 !

B ; 2 & ':> 2 & ':7.

B ;0

# 2 " .

B ; #

, ?.

! "

! !

! <

B ;"

. ! . B ; !2 ;

; *- 6

# *"'''B& ! !

B ;" !

4 "

B ; #

!".

" !

B ; ;

( 6 .

2 "

! ! !==

" !

! "

" " !

< ; !

,6; ,

2 & ':7" < :'

0 2 ;

- $ 2 &9-( !

" !! .

! & !.

" 2 & 97- , ,

*'**" . 5 ,

, %

1 ,H1 2

,I !

:(1!5%2 $E #1)39 !325%2 1% '-'&

. 2

< " .

! A 60

,$ %

% 0,

"$ %

"$ "$ 2 & :+:"..

& '

2 'B6

$ %

. !

". ! = !

! !

! ! . 0

, ;

0 "4

2 & :+>"..

! !

! ! .

= !

; . %

< !

! ! ;A 6"$

2 0

, $ " ,

% ; " %

2 &9-:".

; 9 "!

! .

< !

#(9"''"'''B&,%

%,"

2 #(9"''"'''B&2 & ':> !

,0 6 " $ ".

A 6 ,6; , 6 2 %

2 & ':7

2 & ':+ !

,D !

$ H I .

! ! %

! !

% 0,

" ?5 %

)

A 6!

" 2 & 99'%

! !

" ;"

! "

$ "5 "

A 6 2 & 9->

,!"*'

+ ) "

*'*'"

1! "

*'*' 5 " *'*'"

6"*'**"

*'**

%."

$ "

2 0

! 2 !

". !

" A ,N>+'( !

A N "'*"

+> ! 0

! !

$ A 61!

N ::":(9 N "-:":'' !

N "'7"+9' ! 9''>970

-+9 2 & 9->6

" !

AB:9&4?

6 !

2 & :>9 " 2

" ! !

2 .

. 2

! ! !

! 2 &9:-

4 "4 0"4

$" 4 " )

) "*'

#9''B&

" 9B*' %

;

! 0

*' ". ''

"! ;

!! .

! !

$ ! ! -

;

+ 6

" ". !

! *'

0 J? $

2 #&* , D ", 5 # ; % ? 0 6 L 1= 5 ;"L

"6 %

"., "

1 %

LC " 5 2

"., ? &2 " .

B !

;. !

4 ;

% ;. !

! % ;. !

! ! . !

" >K7 !

" !

? 2 & & "

>K7 ;.

! .

% .

! !

% ;. !

! ?

% !

? .

;

? $

! ?

2 !

, D

! ! . &2

< !

! "!.

! .

. . !

"" " ! ! !

! ?

! . !

! A 6"

. ! !

.2 % ! ;

/ 21.

This Court now proceeds to examine and decide the enhancement of compensation in view of the above referred to report dated 21.04.2023.

22.

A 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.

23.

A 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.

24.

It 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. 25.

Having 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.

26.

It 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.

27.

In this context, reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 43%#!353%1 3%#3 F '

-3!32 43%#!3

* -631% 3%# 3%$24!7 .

000. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:

( 1 "% $ #('"++"7>( # *'":'"(79 .

0 ! 0 .

''M

:'M" !

0 !

- ". . ! ? "

2 *'

& * 2 !

- 9" 6 " *'

! *''+& 'I" .!

# ":9"

''B&1 *'

& * H

!*'

I" .

. # ">>"-''B& 1"

$ 2 !

&**

4 5

? .

#**"''' ."

! ;

(& -?. #**"'''" . #*":-"'''B& %." % $ 0 ! "

# ":*"-*'B& %." ! ! .

2 '* '+!.

2 ? !

" !

2 "

0" ."

. ! ! ;

#*"''"'''B& " "# :"::::>

28.

A 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.

29.

Therefore, 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 '. 7 @ for the purpose of computation of compensation, in order to meet the ends of justice. -,

- 30.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of

3G H(53!

F '

G3D H(53!

3%# %$24!

-(B!5 $(!2 3 ., has held as under:

%!39 B!1%)1B9 !9321%I 2$ )$5B% 321$% 1% 1%G(!D )3 90 53 6" +77HJ6J I ; .

!". "2 ! "

0! .

; .

" ! < ! 0 !

! 2 " .

<" ! 6 ! "! . 0 ! !

" !

. . ! "

H $D !

0 D ;

"6?# +>' $(>:"#, % $ H?

IL" ++9H I $$ 4 ; !

" +>'6$-:>I : 0 . .

G )(%13!D #353I

-B)139

353I I 2 "

= "

" " " 2

IL H

I. . ! " G IL E H!I L

I1 2 &

HC , I I ,

< HI L H B

H IL2 H

I ? " .

H I"H

IH I H I? ".

" .

! H

I H!I"H

I"HI H I

" 2 "

H B

2 '

53D %$6 (553!1 B!1%)1B9 #1 )( # 3C$"

& I6 H !

I0 !

. ! " ! !

0 "

H2 . ".0 ! !

I0. &

. 2 !< 2

2 !

! !

0 ! .

I0 !

" "

!" " '

4 3 5%2 $E 9$ $E E(2(!

3!%1%I AB931%# C9$6 !E!%) 2$ E$99$61%I 99( 2!321$% ++G0 " .; ".

#('''B&

6 ,J " !

! < .

:'M <

< ('M 0

. !

0 ! 9M !

" ! . $ .

! .G

I 6 ! G # (:"'''B& !IL H 9M IG #9-''B& I5

! .

G > IL GH9-''2 >IG# + "7''B& 99( 2!321$% + + G0 .

(' "

#('''B& % !

:'M%.

! % .

! ; !"

; !

0 0 !

>9M $ .

! .G

I 6 G # (:"'''B& !IL H>9M IG#*>'''B& I5

! .

G > IL GH*>'''2 >IG# -"9+"'''B& 99( 2!321$% ++G0 .

6 " .

. " .

0 ! .

>'M6 .

< "

>'M 0 .

! .G

I5 . ! G#:'"'''B& !IL H>'M2 IG#-*'''B& I5

! H*9 I G IL GH-*'''2 7IG#>"9:"'''B&

. PG0 H6I H4I

0 ? H$I. !

; 6 D 5

H IQ 31.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 321$%39 % (!3%) $5B3%D ,2#'

F '

!3%3D -241

! '

= 0 * - * > has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163 A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:

(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand;

(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation;

(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self employed or fixed salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "0". ; 2 ! ? !

" " " 2 ! # 9"'''" #-'"''' # 9"''' 0

4 ! & < & ;

. ! . < ! !

! 'M

! .

! / 32.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of !(#43D3 !1D3 F '

-232 AB!

!3%'

$!B%'

,2#'

7 has held as under:

>0 . < ! 2 !

3 3BB91)321$% $E 5(921B91!

$E +0+ 1% 23# $E + +E

. 0

? $

"*'

>6$)*>''H $I?

" $ 4

! !

3 H I

, 0 $ 6"

*''+6$) *+7H $I? 9&*9 "

!J 7J .

2 !

$ ""

!J 7J J >J

C ,$ $E 3!%1%I )3B3)12D $E 3BB993%2 B!53%%2 #1 3C1912D $E 'J ?

. !

) 5 K"*'

6$) '

H $I

D 6 , K 6" *'

> 6$) +>+ H $I 2 ! .

) H I

7G R7 ?

! ! 6 .

0 .

" .

G I

" E (ii) L E

I 0 !

E I 5 2

! < ; E HI L2 R P

Q 0

! =

D H I

. !

? " . 2 !

" .

= 7 !

S 6 *'

) *'

(0 ! G R32(!

$E 1%G(!DG I

I !!

I !! I ("-K9

HI ! H I H

I !!

2 .

" !

$ .

. 21" !

(

D H I .

! ; ""<

;

(

M0< !

? $L H I"

". !9'M

) 4 241!# 3%# 93 2 3 B)2 1%2! 2 !32 )9315# J ?

. +M .

) F H I "

+M .

$ ,- 70

" !

9 ". ! .G 3# 63!## L . H# -":-72 *2(

#+"7 "+>7B& 1 H9'

I #-"+'"+7+B& 5 2 "

" # 7"-:"7:-B& L

#9"''"'''B& L "

# "9'"'''B&

#*"''"'''B& 0

#- ":+"7( B& 0

. " " ! #- ":+"7( B&

- ?- - H - ,-

' .' & '

,,- @ , ;

, F 7 -

' .'

33.

It 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.

34.

It 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.

35.

In 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 '0707 ..@ towards medical

.* expenses, being the aggregate of the amount originally awarded and the additional expenditure subsequently proved on record. '

, ;--

K ,

-- 7 - ,-

' .' & 36.

Before 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.

37.

The 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 "! C1932!39 21%%12( C1932!39 43!1%I 9$ 7 !1I42 1## F24 %!"

)$5B9A "3 )(93!

)$%E91)27 #B! 1$%7 )4!$%1) 43#3)47 1% $5%137 3%# #13C2 .

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. 38.

Additionally, 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 DB #13C2 7 21%%12( 7 3%# "!21I$ "!

1%) !$3# 2!3EE1) 3))1#%2, which has severely disrupted his sleep cycle and has adversely impacted his blood sugar levels, blood pressure, weight, and overall health.

39.

On 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 %!"

C9$)L B!$)#(!

CD 63D $E 24!3B(21) 1%G)21$% , the corresponding prescription whereof stands proved as Ex.P 1070.

40.

Further 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 )$5B92 C1932!39 43!1%I 9$ .

41.

Significantly, as certified by Dr. Akshata Desai in certificate Ex. P 1068, the appellant/claimant !:(1!

3#51%1 2!321$% $E 5$!

243% * (%12 $E 1% (91% #319D 39$%I E$(!

$!39 3%21#13C21) 3I%2 2$ B!"%2 I9D)51) B1L . This medical opinion unequivocally establishes that the

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. 42.

Additionally, 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$! (!I1)39 1%2!"%21$% E$!

%$%(%1$% $E !1I42 )93"1)97 1%"$9"1%I B9321%I 3%# C$% I!3E21%I. The appellant/claimant has also asserted in his affidavit that he is required to incur substantial expenditure for the said surgery. 43.

The cumulative effect of the aforesaid medical evidenceemanating from specialists in neurosurgery, neurology, endocrinology, and otorhinolaryngology, as well as from a premier government medical institution clearly establishes that the appellant/claimant is (EE!1%I E!$5 B!53%%27 1!!"! 1C97 3%# B!$I! 1"

5#1)39 )$%#121$% . 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. 44.

In view of the medical evidence discussed herein above, this Court is satisfied that the appellant/claimant is (EE!1%I E!$5 B!53%%2 3%# 1!!"! 1C9 #1 3C19121 7 1%)9(#1%I )$5B92 C1932!39 43!1%I 9$ 7 #353I 2$ )!3%139 %!" 7 )4!$%1) %(!$9$I1)39 #1 $!#! 7 #13C2 7 1% $5%137 #B! 1$%7 3%# "!21I$7 $E 641)4 3!

#1!)2 :(93 $E 3))1#%2. The record further establishes that despite prolonged treatment and consultations with specialists across the country, the appellant/claimant

. continues to require ongoing medical intervention, monitoring, medication, and supportive therapy.

45.

Having 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. 46.

Though 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.

47.

Reliance at this stage can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in H'

35D3

! '

F '

321$%39 % (!3%) $'

,2#'

%!'7 - .., 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.

48.

As per latest report dated 21.04.2023, the appellant/claimant is suffering from 100% permanent functional disability. 49.

The 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. 50.

As 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.

51.

The 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. 52.

Further 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.

53.

The 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.

54.

It 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. 55.

The 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). 56.

Notably, 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.

57.

In 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. 58.

Based 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). 59.

For 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 60.

Thus, 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.

61.

These 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. 62.

In view of the above, this Court deems it just, fair and reasonable to award a consolidated sum of '*7 7 7 @

(B -1A !$!

$%9D towards foreign medical treatment, including post operative rehabilitation, incidental expenses and future follow ups, in the interest of justice.

. '

- 63.

So far as the claim for attendant charges is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in H3G39 "'

3I#1 4 43%# 3%# $24! 7

'''

1"19 0, has authoritatively held that in cases of permanent and severe disability, the assessment of attendant charges must be made by applying the multiplier method, keeping in view not only the medical condition of the injured but also the requirement of lifelong assistance. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:

** 0 ! .

% $TL*"9''B& -- ". .;L ("*'"'''B&A " 5

" ;

" $

! . ! 0 .

$ C!

5 L #5D 3 .

" 6?# +:* $ 0

! .

! ? ! !.

U J.

6 *( *- *9 % ". . !

; . !

;

6. " .

! ! <

! !

! . !

. < .. !0

! %

'". .

;

! L -7-:B& ""

L9"'''B& .

< . . .;L '"'''B& ". L "*'"'''B& "

7 .;L* ":'"'''B& 0 ;

/ 64.

A perusal of the recent report of the learned Tribunal, read in conjunction with the medical evidence on record, clearly demonstrates that the appellant/claimant has been continuously suffering since the date of the accident i.e. 13.10.2002. The appellant/claimant is afflicted with persistent tinnitus resulting in constant ringing and buzzing sounds in the brain and

* 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.

65.

The 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. 66.

In 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.

67.

Having 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

0 of the present case clearly establish that the appellant/claimant cannot manage his affairs independently and necessarily requires the services of attendants.

68.

Considering 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.

69.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H3G39 "'

3I#1 4 43%# (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 '77. 7 @.

- 70.

Insofar 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. 71.

This 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.

72.

Reference at this stage can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of H'-' (!391#43!

-(CC(93L 451 3%# 3%$24!

- %91% - , has settled the law regarding grant of compensation under the head of "Pain and Suffering". The relevant portion of the H'-'(!391#43!8 case is reproduced as under:

* ? ! !0 ! % $ ; !

! ''M ;

( ;. U

. ! .

( 0 U

J # ?

J6 L .L2 P+Q G& P+( *''+"L2 2 "4. .

(-- Q R

. !

0 2 ! " .

;

. ! !

%$ .

. .

0H +''I6$

:QR

(* $ P 'Q" 6

" U

J ! U 2 ! ! ! <J" U J U

J P ' GBB... B!

(( ? P

Q !

? 6

" ! . 2

& "

* 0 .

" & " "

" ".

.G P

& V "H*'*-IR,

G .

& R :9H>IG

-(-& --+Q

(( 3 4 !

P *Q" .

A 02 " %"

+7+ R 2 !

R P * GBBB B!&*B&& ! !

&BQ

((*6. ". #

$ A AD "

*''> R2 !"

" R

((( 6 1 ;P (Q" "

"A $ . &;. R$ # R"

*''

"! R

" . . ! !

. R P ( GBB !

B &.& ;& Q

((- , P -Q . A "4 5

A . "$ *''* R P Q"

" "

R P - GBB... B B & & & B & &=B &

(- 0 )

4 " . ;. )

$ A D " ++*

;

! 0 !

"2 .

0 .

*'* P 9Q 0 U

J G& P 9 G% 6# ! 6H*'*-I AD $

Q R? .

;

;? );

. ! ! !

0 ; .

;

! .!

$J. R

(9? &

% # ;

P*''

Q W4 *>*"

* 6 C % 64 K

$ 6

''(-*'

7 G& R*( 0

U J

; 4" , ; )

6.C K0 6 ! L"7(,L# H(I-9*"->9&->:"

! .. .

U J&

. !2

" " !

" 6 !

L 2 . %K L P +:-Q6$(*:"(:- .

G U0

;

. ! ! ? ;! J *- 0

! 0

! .

L$ P +++Q 6$ (-9" (+-% .

G U

(: ? 2 A "

J 3 L L !

* 0G

" !

+7+# 2 G R

! & !

! " RR .

!0 ! & !

! & J &

" ! <

5 ""& & R R XR 6 ! G R &

. " . ! ! ; 6 "R$

J" U ! J"U.

(>$ !" .

B ".

J ;

*. ? " < ! !

. " ;!

1 ;H IE !

" ;!

- ? U

J . !

''M" .

$G&

- ?#,% $ H?

IH IL ++9I $$99 ?.

!G R >0

#("''"''' . 0% $ .# "''"'''

#:"''"''' !

! ; "

0 &

! .

! ; 6 "

! !

"% $

. # "9'"'''

J # "9'"'''

#("''"'''

H# ; I

#:"''"'''

* RU

JR RL

R H

-*0 ).

A ?

? $

LH*'*(I ( $$-(+.

D ;

#0$ H*''(I> $$ +>H

" !

I". .

!G R 76

! !

" ; " ; !;R

-( ? D ) $ H*'*'I - $$ - ( " " ''M !

! ! " ! && & 2 " R ;

! U

J ! # 9"''"'''B&R

--?6 #

C ? H*'**I>

$$>(7

D H I .

# '"''"'''0 . .

* G R6 "

! !

** " "!.

! 0

!9 " .;R

-9?L

H I !

" 0 ! .

#('"'''B& . .

#-'"'''B&!

% $$

2 !

J #("''"'''B&

. !&"

F "

& !

" , !". <

! " .

# 9"''"'''B& Y

# '"''"'''B&". !"

! .

/ 73.

Therefore, in view of the above referred to judgment and prolonged hospitalization and nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, this Court deems it appropriate to grant a compensation of ' 7 7 @ under the head of 'Pain and Suffering'. 74.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to further observe that in such kind of cases, the pain and suffering is not confined to the injured person alone. The

*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.

75.

However, 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. 76.

Further 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.

77.

In 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

* appellant Insurance Company is #1 51 # and the appeal i.e. FAO 3500 2008 filed by the appellant/claimant (Narinder Pal) is 399$6#. 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:

-!'

3# $5B% 321$% 63!## Monthly Income Rs.40,000/ Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.16,000/ (40% of Rs.40,000/ ) Annual Income Rs.6,72,000/ {(40,000 + 16,000) X 12) Loss of earning due to disability (100%) Rs.6,72,000/ (100% of Rs.6,72,000) Multiplier Loss of future earning per annum Rs.1,14,24,000/ (Rs.6,72,000 X 17) Medical Treatment in the United States of America and future medical treatment Rs.6,00,00,000/ Medical Expenses Rs.37,17,844/ Pain and Suffering Rs.30,00,000/ Special Diet Rs.5,00,000/ Transportation charges Rs.2,00,000/ Attendant Charges Rs.1,22,40,000/ Loss due to diminishing of marriage prospects Rs.6,00,000/ $239 $5B% 321$% '7*7 7 ..@

$5B% 321$% 363!## CD

!1C(%39 '7 7 @ %43%)# $5B% 321$% '

7*.7 7 ..@

7*7 7 ..

M 7 7

* 78.

So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 3!3 -1%I4 N

43!3

3%G3!3 F '

-4D35 -1%I4 F3!53 0* and 'F3991 3%# 24!

F-'

3519 3#( -232 !3% B$!2 $!B$!321$%

-(B!5 $(!2 3 07 the appellant/claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount. 79.

Since 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 %43%)# 35$(%2 $E )$5B% 321$% 2$ 2(% $E '

7*.7 7 ..@

A)9(#1%I 5#1)39 2!325%2 1% - 1'

'*7 7 7 @ )3!!D N 1%2! 2 E!$5 #32 $E E191%I $E )9315 B2121$% #32 $E !391<321$%'

35$(%2 $E )$5B% 321$% 363!## (%#!

43# $E #1)39 !325%2 1% - 3%# E(2(!

5#1)39 2!325%2 1'

'*7 7 7 @

)3!!D N 1%2! 2 E!$5 #32 $E E191%I $E 3BB91)321$% E$!

3##121$%39 "1#%) 1'

0' ' #32 $E !391<321$%'

80.

The 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

0 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. 81.

Before 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. 82.

The 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. 83.

Normally, 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

0 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. 84.

Courts, 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. 85.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ' ' *

- - Virender

Whether speaking/non speaking : Speaking