Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5945    OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7396 of 2011)

Kavita  … Appellant

versus

Deepak and Others        … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the High Court in the  

amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for  

short, ‘the Tribunal’), the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. In an accident, which occurred on 2.5.2004, the appellant suffered grievous  

injuries.  She was initially  treated  at  Government  hospital,  Ratlam and then at  

1

Page 2

Bhandari  Hospital,  Indore.  On  4.5.2004,  she  was  admitted  in  CHL  Apollo  

Hospital. She remained in Intensive Care Unit from 4.5.2004 to 25.5.2004 and in  

the private ward from 25.5.2004 to 26.6.2004. As per the medical advice given at  

Indore she was taken to Mumbai, Chennai and finally to Delhi for treatment.  At  

the time of accident, the appellant’s age was about 30 years and she was working  

partner in Tirupati Enterprises.

4. At Bhandari Hospital, Indore she was treated by Dr. Rajesh Gangwani, Dr.  

Srikant Rege, Dr. Parag Aggarwal and Dr. Sunil Athwale.  At Bombay, she was  

treated by Dr. B. S. Singhal, Dr. Bhagwati, Dr. K. K. Garg, Dr. Anukant Mittal,  

Dr. Khandilkar, Dr. Kenny and Dr. Bhatt.  The Disability Certificate issued by Dr.  

Sunil Athwale, who was Neuro Physician at Bhandari Hospital, Indore reads as  

under:  

“DISABILITY CERTIFICATE  This  is  to  certify  that  Smt.  Kavita  Singhal  w/o  Mr.  Deepak  Singhal R/o 100 old agrawal nagar indore aged 31 yrs met with  an  RTA on 02-05-2004 mid night  on  Ratlam -  Indore  State  Highway Road.

She  was  taken  to  Indore  On  ICU  on  wheels  &  was  given  artificial 02 on the way which was 135 KM. We reached Indore  nearly  at  7.30  AM.  and  was  admitted  in  Bhandari  hospital.  During transit  fluid lesusitation was done & heamodyriameis  was maintained. (1.5 Its I/v & I unit blood was given). CT scan  was done nearly after 10 hrs. of injury. Onwards she is under  my treatment and the patient is experienced as below:

2

Page 3

First MR Study of the brain (on 1.5 T ) and the report of the  same reveals:

FINDINGS:- Multiple DWI TI FLAIR & T2 hyperintense signals are noted  in left basal ganglia, right frontal periventricular white matter,  left thalamus & right basi frontal region with areas of magnetic  susceptibility in it suggesting haemorrhage.

T2  FLAIR hyperintense signals are noted diffusely in corpus  callosum,  cinglate  gyrus and periventricular white matter  (frontoperietal suggestive of diffuse axonal injury).

Second  MR  of  brain  has  done  and  the  report  of  the  same  reveals:

FINDINGS:- O1d MRI Scan of brain dated 22/05/04 compared  and following changes noted:

Follow up scan reveals that complete resolution of the posterior  inter  hemispheric  sub  dural  collection  noted  in  left  occipito  parital  region.  Old haemorrhagic products  -  noted in the left  basal  ganglia,  left  anterior  thalamus,  right  frontal  periventricular white matter and right basi frontal region (mild  decrease in size as compared to old study especially in right  basal ganglia). Diffuse axonal injury noted in corpus callosum,  cingulated  gyrus  85 periventricular  white  matter  noted  (mild  decrease as compared to old study)

She was discharged from CHL on 26/06/2004  in a vegetative  stage,  with  a  RT  for  feeding.  That  time  she  was  unable  to  communicate  in,  any  way.  She  was  undergoing  extensive  Physiotheraphy there and was advised the same to continue.

PRESENT STATUS:

*      The patient follows elementary simple commands but with  no other Communication, Verbal or Sign Language.

3

Page 4

* Patient has marked Spastic Quadra paresis, despite anti  spastic drugs.

*Patient is incontinent.

*Disability assessed around 90 %.”

5. The appellant filed a petition through her husband - Shri Deepak Singhal  

under  Section 166 of  the Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988 (for  short,  ‘the Act’)  for  

award of compensation to the tune of Rs.85 lakhs by alleging that the accident  

was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck owned by respondent  

No.1 and driven by respondent No.2. She alleged that the truck dashed against the  

Maruti Esteem car in which she was travelling and as a result of the accident she  

suffered injuries to her head, mouth, right ear and other parts of the body and  

consequentially she has become disabled from doing her routine work.

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company, it was  

pleaded that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the  

truck and that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on  

the date of accident.

7. The driver of the truck was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279, 337  

and 338 IPC.  During the trial, he made confession that the accident was caused  

due to his rash and negligent driving.  The trial Court convicted the driver and  

4

Page 5

imposed  a  fine  of  Rs.2,000/-  and  in  default  to  undergo  three  months  

imprisonment.

8. After recording evidence of the parties, the Tribunal passed award dated  

5.1.2007 and ordained the respondents to pay total compensation of Rs.4 lakh  

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Tribunal relied upon the statements  

of the appellant’s husband – Shri Deepak Singhal, Shri Pushpender Garg, who  

was  driving the  Car  and two other  occupants,  namely,  Prashant  Agarwal  and  

Renu, the Charge Sheet filed in the criminal case, the confession of the driver and  

the judgment of the trial Court and concluded that the accident took place due to  

rash and negligent driving of the truck.  The Tribunal then considered the issue  

relating to quantam of compensation, referred to oral and documentary evidence  

and concluded that it  would be just  to award Rs.2,50,000/-  under the head of  

treatment, Rs.1,25,000/- under the head of permanent disability and Rs.25,000/-  

under the head of pain and suffering.  

9. The  appellant  challenged  the  award  of  the  Tribunal  in  Miscellaneous  

Appeal  No.870  of  2007.   During  the  pendency  of  the  appeal,  she  filed  IA  

No.180/2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 for bringing on record the bills to show that  

she  had  spent  Rs.5,94,013/-  on  treatment  and  as  on  the  date  of  filing  the  

application, Rs.7,76,480/- had been spent on treatment.

5

Page 6

10. The learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allowed  

the  appeal  and  enhanced  the  compensation  by  a  sum  of  Rs.12,76,480/-  with  

interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced amount payable from the date of the  

claim  petition  till  realization.  The  reasons  assigned  by  the  High  Court  for  

enhancement of the compensation are contained in paragraph 6 of the impugned  

judgment which is extracted below:

“6.After having heard learned counsel for the parties, under the  directions  of  the  Court  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  parties were directed to verify the bills which are available till  decision by the claims Tribunal. Admittedly, those bill are of  Rs.7,76,480/-. I have also perused the bills, after verification in  the opinion of this Court the Tribunal has refused to grant the  Bills  of  Rs.5,26,480/-,  without  any  reason.  However,  in  the  opinion of this Court such amount deserves to be allowed in the  head of medical expenses in addition to the amount awarded by  the Tribunal. In the opinion of this Court in the head of pain  and  suffering  Rs.25,000/-  as  awarded  is  also  inadequate;  I  further add Rs.25,000/- in the said head, looking to her position.  In  the  heads  of  attendant,  future  medical  expenses  in  my  opinion  Rs.2,00,000/-  in  each  of  the  heads  deserves  to  be  granted,  because  the  appellant  is  required  an  attendant  for  whole  life.  Some  of  the  bills  of  physiotherapy  has  been  produced along with  application  under  Order  41  Rule  27 of  CPC. After going through those bill I am not satisfied that such  bills should be awarded at this stage, because it is in sequence.  In some of the bills there is overwriting on the dates. In some of  the bills there is signature of Sangita, but in other bills there is  thumb impression. Thus I am not allowing the bills of under 41  Rule 27 of CPC as filed before this Court, but at the same time  during pendency of this appeal some medical expenses would  have been made, therefore, in the said head Rs.50,000/- is being  awarded. In the head of future loss of earning due to the said  permanent disability in the opinion of this Court a lump sum  

6

Page 7

amount deserves to be granted, because the Income Tax papers  of the firm are available on record and she was the partner in  the said firm. Business is being carried out by other partners  who  are  family  members.  Therefore,  lump  sum  amount  deserves  to  be  granted.  In  my  opinion  Rs.2,75,000/-  further  deserves  to  be  allowed  making  the  total  in  the  head  of  permanent  disability  Rs.4,00,000/-.  Thus,  the  total  amount  comes  to  Rs.16,76,480/-.  The  Tribunal  has  already  awarded  Rs.4,00,000/-, after deducting the same the net amount comes  to Rs. 12,76,480/- which is liable to be enhanced.”

11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that even though the High Court  

has enhanced the compensation, the same cannot be treated as just because as a  

result of the accident the appellant suffered permanent disability and has virtually  

become  a  vegetable  and  would  require  treatment  throughout  her  life.  He  

submitted that due to neurological deformity the appellant is not in a position to  

do any work and had to give up her partnership in Triupati Enterprises where she  

was  earning  Rs.12,000/-  per  month.  Not  only  this,  she  lost  her  memory  and  

capacity  of  hearing and has  spent  about  Rs.10.5  lakhs  for  treatment.  Learned  

counsel relied upon the statement of Dr. Rajesh Gangwani and Dr. Sunil Athwale,  

who treated her and who were examined before the Tribunal to show that present  

mental state of the appellant is of a six year old and she would require constant  

physiotherapy  and  support  of  one  attendant  at  all  times.  Learned  counsel  

submitted that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is  

wholly  inadequate  and  the  amount  of  compensation  should  be  adequately  

7

Page 8

enhanced keeping in view the fact that due to escalation in the cost of medical  

treatment, the appellant will have to incur substantial expenses in future medical  

treatment, physiotherapy and nursing. In support of his arguments, the learned  

counsel relied upon the judgments of this Court in Nizam’s Institute of Medical  

Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1, Oriental Insurance Company  

Limited v. Mohd. Nasir (2009) 6 SCC 280 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011)  

1 SCC 343.

12. Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the enhancement  

granted by the High Court is just fair and reasonable and does not require to be  

further enhanced.

13. We have considered the respective submission. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest  

Control (India) Private Limited (1995) 1 SCC 551, this Court observed that the  

exercise for determination of compensation in accident cases involve some guess  

work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the  

nature  of  disability.   But  these  elements  are  required  to  be  considered  in  an  

objective manner.  In that case, the claimant was a retired judge and practicing  

when he met with an accident that caused 100% disability and paraplegia below  

the waist. While determining compensation payable to him in a claim filed under  

Section 110A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, this Court referred to the judgment of  

8

Page 9

the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, Halsbury's Laws of  

England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed:

“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 reflect that different  circumstances have been taken into consideration.”

9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation  payable  to  a  victim of  an  accident,  the  damages  have  to  be  assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.  Pecuniary  damages  are  those  which  the  victim  has  actually  incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of  money;  whereas  non-pecuniary damages are  those  which are  incapable  of  being  assessed  by  arithmetical  calculations.  In  order  to  appreciate  two  concepts  pecuniary  damages  may  include  expenses  incurred  by  the  claimant:  (i)  medical  attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial;  (iii)  other  material  loss.  So  far  non-pecuniary  damages  are  concerned,  they  may  include  (i)  damages  for  mental  and  physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be  suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of  amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on  account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk run or  sit;  (iii)  damages  for  the  loss  of  expectation  of  life,  i.e.  on  account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned  is  shortened;  (iv)  inconvenience,  hardship,  discomfort,  disappointment frustration and mental stress in life.

10.  In  cannot  be  disputed  that  because  of  the  accident  the  appellant  who  was  an  active  practising  lawyer  has  become  paraplegic  on account  of  the  injuries  sustained  by him.  It  is  really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of  compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant  and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of  compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant.  

9

Page 10

That  is  why  it  has  been  said  by  courts  that  whenever  any  amount  is  determined  as  the  compensation  payable  for  any  injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate  such injury "so  far  as  money can compensate"  because  it  is  impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or  personal  deprivations.  Money  cannot  renew  a  broken  and  shattered physical frame.”

14. In Arvind Kumar Mishra v.  New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  and another  

(2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court sought to assess future earnings of a final year  

engineering  student  who  received  injuries  to  the  brain  among  others  which  

resulted in 70% permanent disability and he needed a helper throughout his life.  

The Court observed:

“We do not intend to review in detail  state  of  authorities  in  relation  to  assessment  of  all  damages  for  personal  injury.  Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for  personal injury is compensation.  The whole idea is to put the  claimant in the same position as he was in so far as money can.  Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in  mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the  hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give  him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some  cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life  time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn  his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of  earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own  facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a  fair and reasonable sum.”

(emphasis supplied)

10

Page 11

15. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6  

SCC 1, this Court was called upon to assess the compensation payable under the  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the victim of medical negligence who was left  

completely paralyzed at the age of 20.  After detailed examination of the issue, the  

Court observed as under:

“39. We must emphasize that the Court has to strike a balance  between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and  the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that  nothing  is  payable.  Sympathy  for  the  victim  does  not,  and  should not, come in the way of making a correct assessment,  but  if  a  case  is  made  out,  the  Court  must  not  be  chary  of  awarding  adequate  compensation.  The  "adequate  compensation" that we speak of, must to some extent, be a rule  of  the thumb measure,  and as  a  balance has  to  be  struck,  it  would be difficult to satisfy all the parties concerned. It must  also be borne in mind that life has its pitfalls and is not smooth  sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have us believe)  as the hiccups that invariably come about cannot be visualized.  Life  it  is  said  is  akin  to  a  ride  on  a  roller  coaster  where  a  meteoric rise is often followed by an equally spectacular fall,  and the distance  between the two (as in this  very case)  is  a  minute or a yard. At the same time we often find that a person  injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress, vis- `a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial  shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and  in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured  and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling  of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every  day.  The  support  that  is  needed  by  a  severely  handicapped  person  comes  at  an  enormous  price,  physical,  financial  and  emotional,  not  only  on  the  victim  but  even  more  so  on  his  family  and  attendants  and  the  stress  saps  their  energy  and  destroys their equanimity. We can also visualize the anxiety of  the complainant and his parents for the future after the latter, as  must  all  of  us,  inevitably  fade  away.  We,  have,  therefore  

11

Page 12

computed the compensation keeping in mind that his brilliant  career has been cut short and there is, as of now, no possibility  of improvement in his condition, the compensation will ensure  a steady and reasonable income to him for a time when he is  unable to earn for himself.”

16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court considered  

large number of precedents and laid down the following propositions:

“The provision of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for  short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means  that  compensation  should,  to  the  extent  possible,  fully  and  adequately  restore  the  claimant  to  the  position  prior  to  the  accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the  loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do  so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the  Tribunal  shall  have  to  assess  the  damages  objectively  and  exclude  from consideration any speculation  or  fancy,  though  some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and  its  consequences,  is  inevitable.  A  person  is  not  only  to  be  compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which  he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be  compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to  enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but  for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to  earn or could have earned.

The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal  injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i)  Expenses  relating to  treatment,  hospitalisation,  medicines,  transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would  have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

12

Page 13

(iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence  of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi)  Loss  of  expectation  of  life  (shortening  of  normal  longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded  only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases  of  injury,  where  there  is  specific  medical  evidence  corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation  will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi)  relating  to  loss  of  future  earnings  on  account  of  permanent  disability,  future  medical  expenses,  loss  of  amenities  (and/or  loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.”

17. In  Sri  Ramachandrappa v.  The  Manager,  Royal  Sundaram  Alliance  

Insurance Company Limited (2011) 13 SCC 236, the Court observed:

“8.  The  compensation  is  usually  based  upon the  loss  of  the  claimant's  earnings  or  earning  capacity,  or  upon  the  loss  of  particular  faculties  or  members  or  use  of  such  members,  ordinarily in accordance with a definite schedule. The Courts  have  time  and  again  observed  that  the  compensation  to  be  awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the  injury,  but  rather  by  the  extent  or  degree  of  the  incapacity  resulting from the injury. The Tribunals are expected to make  an  award  determining  the  amount  of  compensation  which  should appear to be just, fair and proper.

9. The term "disability", as so used, ordinarily means loss or  impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean  loss of a member of the body. If the physical efficiency because  of  the injury has substantially  impaired or  if  he is  unable  to  perform the same work with the same ease as before he was  injured or is unable to do heavy work which he was able to do  previous  to  his  injury,  he  will  be  entitled  to  suitable  compensation. Disability benefits are ordinarily graded on the  

13

Page 14

basis of the character of the disability as partial or total, and as  temporary or permanent. No definite rule can be established as  to what constitutes partial incapacity in cases not covered by a  schedule or fixed liabilities, since facts will differ in practically  every case.”

18. In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is suffice  

to say that in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of  

accident,  who  are  disabled  either  permanently  or  temporarily,  efforts  should  

always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury  

and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life  

and enjoy amenities, which would have been enjoyed but for the disability caused  

due  to  the  accident.  The  amount  awarded  under  the  head  of  loss  of  earning  

capacity  are  distinct  and  do  not  overlap  with  the  amount  awarded  for  pain,  

suffering  and  loss  of  enjoyment  of  life  or  the  amount  awarded  for  medical  

expenses.   

19. Dr. Rajesh Gangwani, who was examined before the Tribunal deposed that  

the appellant is kept alive by feeding through a pipe and nursing care is required  

for  daily  routine  work  also.  He  stated  that  she  had  suffered  75% permanent  

disability and there seems to be no probability of recovery as she has lost her  

capacity  for  hearing,  understanding,  speaking  and  establishing  interaction.  

However,  he  also  stated  that  since  appellant  is  still  under  treatment,  final  

14

Page 15

conclusion about permanent disability cannot be established. Dr Sunil Athwale,  

deposed that appellant was gaining consciousness slowly but the status of sense  

was at the lowest level and no improvement has come in the last 2 and half years.  

He stated that probability of further improvement is negligible and food and liquid  

are given through pipes. He stated that disability should be treated as 100% but he  

had not shown 90% as permanent disability in the certificate as while treatment  

continues, hope of improvement always prevails. On the basis of the same, the  

Tribunal held that the appellant had suffered permanent disability however the  

presumption cannot be drawn that she suffered 75% permanent disability because  

she is still  undergoing treatment and the doctor himself had deposed that final  

conclusion  regarding  permanent  disability  cannot  be  established  till  the  time  

treatment continues. The High Court did not record any finding on this issue but  

increased the amount awarded towards permanent disability and future loss of  

earning.  Since the discharge certificate was issued on 26.6.2004, the claimant had  

made  little  progress  up  till  the  time  the  disability  certificate  was  issued  on  

23.8.2006 and even till date she continues to be in a vegetative state and requires  

an  attendant  at  all  times and continued physiotherapy,  we are  not  inclined to  

approve  the  approach  of  the  Tribunal  and  High  Court  granting  a  lump  sum  

compensation because both failed to take into consideration the loss of income  

during the period of treatment when the appellant was totally incapacitated.  Even  

15

Page 16

if the income of the appellant is taken to be Rs.2,000/- , the loss of income during  

the period of treatment, which continued till the judgment of the High Court i.e.  

from 2.5.2004 to 18.5.2010 would be Rs.1,47,000/- approximately.  

20. As  per  the  disability  certificate  issued  on  23.8.2006,  the  appellant  had  

virtually become vegetable and, therefore, she is not in a position to look after  

herself what to say of discharging her functions as partner of Tirupati Enterprises.  

Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 17, the future loss of earning would come  

to Rs.3,67,200/-.

21. In light of the decision in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), the Tribunal  

and High Court erred in failing to award compensation under the heads of loss of  

amenities  and loss  of  expectation  of  life.  Relying  on the  decision  in  Nizam's  

Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (supra) and assuming the  

claimant’s  life  expectancy  to  be  55  years,  we  deem  it  appropriate  to  award  

attendant charges at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and physiotherapy expenses  

at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. With regard to the head of physical and mental  

pains  the  amount  is  enhanced  to  Rs.3,00,000/-  and  another  Rs.3,00,000/-  is  

awarded under the heads of loss of amenities and loss of life expectancy.

16

Page 17

22. In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  partly  allowed,  the  impugned  judgment  is  

modified and it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to compensation under  

different heads of which the details are given below:

Head Values Calculation Total  

Medical treatment as awarded by the High Court Rs. 7,76,480/-

Medical  expenses  during  the  pendency  of the appeal

as awarded by the High Court Rs. 50,000/-

Attendant charges Rs.2,000/- per month  for 25 years

Rs.2000 x 12 x 25 Rs.6,00,000/-

Future  medical  expenses  (physiotherapy)

Rs.3,000/- per month  for 25 years

Rs.3000 x 12 x 25 Rs.9,00,000/-

Loss  of  earning  during  the  period  of  treatment

Rs.2,000/-  monthly  income  for  the  period  between  date  of  accident  2.5.2004  and High Court order  18.5.2010

Rs.2000 x 12 x 6  + Rs.2000 x 16/30

Rs.1,45,067/-

Loss  of  future  earnings  on  account  of  permanent  disability

taking  multiplier  of  17  for  age  of  30  years,  disability  as  90%,  annual  income  as Rs.24,000/-

Rs.24,000  x  17  x  90/100

Rs.3,67,200/-

Physical  and  mental  pains

Rs. 3,00,000/-

Loss  of  amenities  and  loss  of  expectation of life

Rs.3,00,000/-

Total Rs.34,38,747/-

17

Page 18

23.  Respondent No.3 is directed to pay to the appellant total compensation of  

Rs.34,38,747/- within a period of 3 months by getting prepared a demand draft in  

her name which shall be delivered at her residence.  While doing so, respondent  

No.3 shall be free to deduct the amount already paid to the appellant pursuant to  

the award passed by the Tribunal and/or the impugned judgment.  If law permits it  

to do so, respondent No.3 shall be free to recover the amount of compensation  

from respondent Nos.1 and 2.   

…...……..….………………….…J.             [G.S. Singhvi]

…………..….………………….…J.              [Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya]

New Delhi, August 22, 2012.

18