ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGHversusNAMITA SEKHON & ANOTHER

                         [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1                             1


                 ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH                                 A
                                 v.
                NAMITA SEKHON & ANOTHER
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4648 of 2022)
                           JULY 06, 2022                                B
    [INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Injuries causing 100% disability
– Determination of just and reasonable compensation – Pecuniary
damages and non-pecuniary damages – Appellant-claimant suffered
                                                                        C
100% permanent disability in a road accident when he was five
and half years of age – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted
compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, High Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs.23,20,000/- – On appeal, held: Taking guidance
from the judgment of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others reported as
[2020] 3 SCR 622 for determination of the compensation in the present   D
case, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable – On facts, the amount
determined for payment of the compensation in pecuniary heads
( i.e. the loss of future earning, medical expenses including future
medical expenses, attendant charges and transportation including
future transportation) comes to Rs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniary
                                                                        E
heads (mental and physical pain, sufferings present and in future,
loss of amenities of life including loss of marital bliss, loss of
expectancy in life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life etc.) comes to
Rs.5,00,000/- – Total compensation comes to Rs.51,62,000/- –
Enhanced amount of Rs.28,42,000/- to carry interest @ 6.5% p.a.         F
from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Determination of just compensation
– Multiplier method – Held: Multiplier method has been recognized
as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided
looking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other       G
realistic needs – Thus, for determination of just compensation to
ensure justice with the family of deceased or the injured as the case
may be the compensation can be determined applying said method
– Not only for determination of future loss of earning but for
attendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed –
                                                                        H
                                 1
2            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A   Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal while granting the
    compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years
    and attendant charges only for 20 years was not justified – Said
    amount should be determined applying the multiplier method.
          Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Determination of –
B   Basis for, reason for awarding such compensation, applying the
    uniform methodology comparable to the injuries – English
    Judgments vis-à-vis Indian Law – Discussed.
          Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Non-pecuniary damages – “pain,
    shock and suffering” – Multiple factors to be considered from the
C   date of accident – Discussed.
          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
          HELD: 1.1 The claimant has suffered 100% permanent
    disability in a road accident and the liability is joint and several.
    By making the payment of compensation for damages would not
D   revive the claimant into his original position. The compensation
    towards wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decided
    by the Court but it may be determined as per the recognized
    principles. [Para 9, 10][9-F; 10-B-C]
           1.2 The High Court in the impugned order observed that
E   the claimant has now started practice as an advocate, therefore,
    future loss of earning has been calculated only for 10 years,
    applying the multiplier of 16, without looking to the facts that
    claimant cannot perform the work of advocacy similar to the other
    advocates by attending the cases in different Courts. The
F   attendant charges have been allowed only for 20 years with one
    attendant. In fact, not only for determination of future loss of
    earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method
    should be followed. The multiplier method has been recognized
    as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided
    looking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other
G   realistic needs. Thus, for determination of just compensation to
    ensure justice with the family of deceased or the injured as the
    case may be the compensation can be determined applying said
    method. Therefore, the Tribunal while granting the compensation
    of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and attendant
    charges only for 20 years was not justified. In fact, the said amount
H
    ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON &                         3
                   ANOTHER

should be determined applying the multiplier method. In the           A
judgment of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, while replacing the
schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, it is not made clear what multiplier
would be applicable below the age of 15. In the case of Kajal, the
injured was 12 years of the age, however, the multiplier of 18 has
been applied. Therefore, taking guidance from the judgment of
                                                                      B
Kajal, for determination of the compensation in the present case,
the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. [Para 14, 15][11-G-H; 12-
A-E]
      Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413
      : [2020] 3 SCR 622 – relied on.
                                                                      C
      Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport
      Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5
      SCR 1098; National Insurance Company Limited v.
      Pranay Sethi & Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13
      SCR 100 – referred to.
                                                                      D
       1.3 In view of the said legal position, the compensation can
be assessed in pecuniary heads i.e. the loss of future earning,
medical expenses including future medical expenses, attendant
charges and also in the head of transportation including future
transportation. In the non--pecuniary heads, the compensation
can be computed for the mental and physical pain and sufferings       E
present and in future, loss of amenities of life including loss of
marital bliss, loss of expectancy in life, inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life etc.
Out of the pecuniary heads MACT has not awarded any amount
in future loss of earning even having 100% permanent disability       F
while the High Court granted Rs.6,00,000/- only for 10 years
because the appellant is now practicing as an advocate in the
Court accepting his earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. The father
of the appellant was a Professor and the mother was an IAS officer.
The claimant has been nurtured and brought up in a status enjoyed
by his parents. He was planning to become an Executive or IAS         G
officer. On account of the injuries in temporal region and the
permanent disability suffered, he was unable to do his studies as
expected or planned. After sincere efforts he could have passed
the LL. B and started the advocate profession. A judicial notice
can be taken of the fact that for a proficient advocate the person    H
4            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A   must be physically fit as he is required to move frequently to
    attend the professional work reaching from one Court to other,
    and for movements to complete other professional commitments.
    Looking to the nature of injuries and the permanent disablement
    which the claimant has suffered, i.e., lower limb is completely
    paralyzed while his upper limb is partially paralyzed having 100%
B
    permanent disability resulting in bodily movements being
    hampered. The capacity of the claimant being an advocate cannot
    be equated with other practicing advocate having no deformity in
    the same profession. The claimant is required to make
    extraordinary efforts to attend the proceedings in the Court and
C   to come up to the expectations of the client. The disablement
    suffered to the claimant is for whole life and in the said fact, the
    future loss of earning calculated by the High Court only for 10
    years is not justified. Accepting the future loss of earning
    Rs.5,000/- per month as decided by the High Court which annually
    comes to Rs.60,000/- and apply the multiplier of 18 as applicable
D
    looking to the age, then the sum comes to Rs.10,80,000/-, in the
    said head. [Para 16, 17][12-G-H; 13-A-E]
          1.4 In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or the
    High Court has not awarded any compensation presumably
    because the mother of the claimant who was minor at the time of
E   accident may have claimed the amount of medical expenses being
    an IAS officer. But now the claimant has become major, and
    looking to the nature of injuries, future medical expenses that
    includes the attendant charges, use of diapers due to loss of
    urination senses is required to be calculated including future
F   medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,92,000/- in the
    head of attendant charges @ 1,000/- per month. While the High
    Court proceeded on the premises that the rate of the attendant
    charges is variable after every five years, however, the Court
    calculated the amount @ Rs.2,000/- thereafter @ Rs.4,000/- per
    month for a period of 20 years and accordingly determined
G   Rs.9,00,000/- making enhancement of Rs.7,08,000/- in the said
    head. Applying the multiplier method and in view of the judgment
    of Kajal, the rate of attendant charges Rs.5000/- per month for
    12 hours is accepted, looking to the nature of injuries and disability
    the claimant is required two attendants at least within 24 hours
H   then the expenses in the head of attendant charges comes to
    ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON &                            5
                   ANOTHER

Rs.10,000/- per month. Applying the multiplier of 18, the amount         A
comes to Rs.21,60,000/-. Similarly for medical expenses in the
head of physiotherapy required to the claimant, the Tribunal
awarded Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50 per day. The High Court granted
lumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/- including the expenses for
diapers. The said amount is not adequate. In these days the
                                                                         B
physiotherapist would charge at least Rs.150/- per day to treat
the patient for one hour which monthly comes to Rs.4,500/- and
annually 54,000/-, applying the multiplier of 18, the amount in the
head of physiotherapy charges comes to Rs.9,72,000/-. For the
purpose of use of diapers, regular medical check-up and medical
expenses if Rs.2,00,000/- is further added then in the head of           C
future medical expenses the amount comes to Rs.11,72,000/-.
Under the head of transportation, the MACT awarded only
Rs.15,000/- for the visit Delhi to Chandigarh which is enhanced
by the High Court to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The High Court
further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- in the head of motorized wheel
                                                                         D
chair. During the life span grant of amount for motorized vehicle
only for once is not just. Similarly, in the head of transportation in
future, therefore, the said amount is enhanced in lumpsum to
Rs.2,50,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.50,000/- as awarded
by the High Court. [Paras 18-20][13-E-H; 14-A-E]
      1.5 Under the head “non-pecuniary damages”, the claimant           E
has faced the pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of
injuries. To award compensation under the head “pain, shock
and suffering”, multiple factors are required to be considered
from the date of accident, which include the prolonged
hospitalization and regular medical assistance, nature of the            F
injuries sustained, the operations underwent and the consequent
pain, discomfort and suffering. Simultaneously, he has to suffer
post-accident agony for whole life, including the amenities of life,
which he can enjoy as a normal man but unable to do so on account
of permanent disability. In the era of competition, he can perform
better as a normal man but is unable to compete with others.             G
Therefore, under the head “pain, shock and suffering”, amount
of compensation deserves to be granted. The appellant is entitled
for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of amenities of life
and marital bliss, pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment and loss
                                                                         H
6            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A   of expectancy, Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the High Court is
    maintained in the head of special diet. Thus, in the non-pecuniary
    heads, the compensation as determined comes to Rs.5,00,000/-.
    The amount determined for payment of the compensation in
    pecuniary heads comes to Rs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniary
    heads the sum comes to Rs.5,00,000/-. The total compensation
B
    comes to Rs.51,62,000/-. The enhanced amount comes to
    Rs.28,42,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6.5%
    p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.
    [Para 24, 25][14-E-H; 15-B-D]
          R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995)
C         1 SCC 551 : [1995] 1 SCR 75; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
          & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179-
          relied on.
          Jagadish v. Mohan and Others (2018) 4 SCC 571 :
          [2018] 3 SCR 20 – referred to.
D
          Philipps v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1879)
          LR 5 QBD 78 Mediana, In re- 1900 AC 113 (HL); H.
          West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard 1964 AC 326; Ward v.
          James (1966) 1 QB 273 – referred to.

E                          Case Law Reference
    [2020] 3 SCR 622               relied on            Para 7
    [2018] 3 SCR 20                referred to          Para 8
    [2017] 13 SCR 100              referred to          Para 8
F   [1995] 1 SCR 75                relied on            Para 12
    [2010] 13 SCR 179              relied on            Para 12
    [2009] 5 SCR 1098              referred to          Para 15
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4648
G   of 2022.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2019 of the High Court
    of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO NO. 4829 of 2002.
           Karan Dalal, Harmanjit Singh, Suryavir, Deepkaran Dalal, Advs.
    for the Appellant.
H
     ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON &                                     7
                    ANOTHER

       Kailash Prashad Pandey, Adv. for the Respondents.                           A
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
       Leave granted.
       2. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.05.2019           B
passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in First Appeal Order No.4829 of 2002 preferred by the
claimant/appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as “claimant”), whereby
the said appeal was partly allowed and the compensation granted to the
tune of Rs.9,00,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh            C
(hereinafter to be referred to as “MACT”) in MACT Case No. 29 of
1997 was enhanced to Rs. 23,20,000/-.
       3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “M.V. Act”) asking compensation to
the tune of Rs. 200,000,00/- (two crores only) in various heads on account         D
of permanent disability caused to him arising out of a road accident
occurred on 10.11.1996, for which FIR was lodged on 11.11.1996. At
the time of accident, claimant was five and half years of age and a
student of UKG, suffered multiple injuries like cerebral edema/brain
edema, fracture right part of temporal bone, spinal cord, lower limbs,
due to which he was having loss of speech, convulsions, injuries on face.          E
The lower limb of claimant was completely paralysed resulted into 100%
disability, his hope to live blissful life was lost due to those injuries. It is
said his father was a professor and mother was an IAS officer, the
claimant was having desire to become Executive/IAS officer because
of his background. On account of head injuries including the fracture in           F
temporal bone, the development and capacity of the brain was not
comparable to a common man. Due to injuries in lower limbs, he lost the
senses for calls of nature and needs all time attendants for his daily
routine work. He cannot move without wheel chair or motorized vehicle,
thus his future is in complete jeopardy.
                                                                                   G
       4. The MACT while deciding the claim petition recorded the finding
of joint and several liability and the claimant has suffered 100% disability.
The Tribunal calculated the compensation applying the multiplier of 16
and awarded Rs.1,92,000/- in the head of attendant charges @
Rs.1,000/- per month, for physiotherapy Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50 per day,
Rs.15,000/- has been awarded in transportation charges, and                        H
8             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A   Rs.5,000/- for use of diapers in future. The Tribunal granted
    Rs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of expectations of life, loss of marital
    bliss, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, permanent disability, pain
    and sufferings, thus awarded total sum of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @
    9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
    payment.
B
             5. The adequacy of the grant of compensation was assailed by
    the claimant by filing an appeal before the High Court which was allowed
    in part vide order dated 21.05.2019. The Court awarded Rs.1,00,000/-
    for the motorized wheel chair. The future loss of earning is awarded to
    the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- accepting the loss of Rs.60,000/- per annum
C   for 10 years only. The attendant charges as granted by the claims Tribunal
    is enhanced to the tune of Rs.7,08,000/- @ Rs.3,500/- per month only
    for 20 years. In appeal, in the head of medicines, physiotherapy and
    diapers the High Court awarded Rs.8,00,000/- in lump sum enhancing
    the amount as allowed by MACT. In the head of loss of amenities of
D   life, marital bliss Rs.3,00,000/- was allowed and Rs.1,00,000/- for the
    special diet enhancing the total amount of compensation to the tune of
    Rs.23,20,000/-. The High Court further directed to pay interest on the
    enhanced amount @ 7.25% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition
    till its payment.
E          6. By filing this appeal, the inadequacy of grant of compensation
    by MACT and also by the High Court has been questioned seeking
    enhancement applying the just and reasonable theory, looking to the nature
    of permanent disability, the profession which he is doing, in pecuniary as
    well as in non-pecuniary heads. It is urged that the compensation granted
    by the MACT and the High Court is unjust and unreasonable and not
F   commensurate to the nature of injuries, which caused 100% permanent
    disability to the claimant. The enhancement has also been prayed on
    various heads and on various grounds.
            7. The adequacy of the grant of compensation as allowed was
    challenged in the head of future loss of earning suffered due to permanent
G   disability for the whole life. It is urged, the loss of future earnings granted
    by the High Court @ Rs. 60,000/- p.a. for 10 years only but on account
    of the disability caused, the earning of claimant shall affect him for whole
    life, that too cannot be comparable to an advocate doing profession having
    normal capacity. The attendant charges @ Rs.3,500/- per month granted
H   by the High Court only for 20 years though the appellant required
     ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON &                                 9
           ANOTHER [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

attendant all the time, during lifetime. On account of loss of senses, he is   A
required to use diapers for whole life. In the head of future treatment,
medical expenses including physiotherapy, the amount as awarded is
inadequate. He is required to purchase motorized wheel chair, time to
time during his life. In the head of pain and sufferings, loss of marital
bliss, loss of amenities of life, the agony which he shall face before the
                                                                               B
society for whole life the adequate amount of compensation has not
been granted, however enhancement of compensation is prayed. In
support of the contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others - (2020)
4 SCC 413.
       8. The record indicates that despite service, none present for the      C
respondent No.1. Mr. Kailash Prashad Pandey, advocate is representing
respondent No. 2 – United India Insurance Company Limited and filed
the counter-affidavit, inter alia, contending that both courts have rightly
decided the case on the basis of admitted facts and documentary evidence
on record and the concurrent findings are in favour of respondent No. 2.       D
It is said the judgment passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in
Jagadish vs. Mohan and Others - (2018) 4 SCC 571 and the case
titled NIC Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680 decided
by the Constitutional Bench of this Court are supporting the case of
respondent No.2. It is further submitted that High Court has rightly
followed the law laid down by this Court and there is no future scope for      E
enhancement of compensation.
       9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the
findings recorded by the MACT and High Court, it cannot be doubted
that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability in a road
accident and the liability is joint and several. For the purpose of            F
understanding the nature of injuries and its extent, the statement of PW1-
Dr. Sunil Katoch, Consultant, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi
is relevant. As per his testimony, the claimant suffered the spinal injury
at level C-7, C-8 with complete bowel and bladder paralysis and is unable
to use his upper limbs (hands) with full strength. MRI suggests extensive      G
myelomalacia of spinal cord from C-7 to D-4 level, to which optimize
domiciliary care is required. Further, regular and every year check-up is
also required to him. Due to spinal injury, he has suffered complete
paralysis of both lower limbs and partial involvement of hands along
with bowel and bladder. In consequence, he may suffer urinary
                                                                               H
10            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A    complications throughout his life to which adequate medical attention is
     required. He cannot pursue a regular carrier having embarrassing
     situation. The percentage of permanent disability is 100%. With the said
     medical opinion and the findings, the issue of adequacy and to grant the
     just and reasonable amount of compensation requires consideration.
B           10. It is not out of place to state, by making the payment of
     compensation for damages would not revive the claimant into his original
     position. The compensation towards wrongful act in terms of money
     though cannot be decided by the Court but it may be determined as per
     the recognized principles. In the said context, some of the English
     judgments are relevant, which may specify why the compensation be
C    paid, what should be the basis for determination and what may be the
     reason for awarding such compensation, applying the uniform
     methodology for determination of compensation, comparable to the
     injuries, thereby a person can lead his life, though his physical frame
     cannot be reversed.
D           11. In the case of Philipps vs. London & South Western Railway
     Co. - (1879) LR 5 QBD 78, it was held that by making a payment of
     compensation for the damages, the Court cannot put back again the
     claimant into his original position. On the date of determination of the
     compensation, he is being compensated but he cannot sue again, therefore,
E    the compensation must be full and final while determining the same. In
     Mediana, In re - 1900 AC 113 (HL), it is said that the determination
     for an amount of compensation to the damages is an extreme task. What
     may be adequate amount for a wrongful act and can it be compensated
     by money, particularly towards pain and suffering. By an arithmetical
     calculation, it cannot be decided what may be the exact amount of money
F    which would represent the pain and suffering to a person, but as per
     recognized principles, damages must be paid. In H. West & Son Ltd.
     vs. Shephard - 1964 AC 326, it was held that payment of compensation
     in terms of money may be awarded so that something tangible may be
     procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been
G    destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has
     been battered and shattered, however the courts must consider to award
     sums, which may be a reasonable. Simultaneously, uniformity in the
     general method of approach is also required. Thereby, possible
     comparable injuries can be compensated by comparable awards. Lord
     Denning, while speaking for the Court of Appeal in Ward vs. James -
H
     ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON &                                 11
           ANOTHER [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

(1966) 1 QB 273 has specified three basic principles i.e. accessibility,       A
uniformity and predictability to be followed in the like cases.
       12. In the perspective of Indian law, in the case of R.D.
Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. - (1995) 1 SCC 551,
this Court has specified that while determining the compensation for
physical injuries, the heads on which the amount of compensation is to         B
be determined, may be of two types, one is of pecuniary damages and
another is of non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages include the
loss of earning, medical attendance, transport charges and other material
loss. The non-pecuniary damages include the expenses for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered
in the future, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life,         C
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and
mental stress in life which has been followed in the case of Raj Kumar
vs. Ajay Kumar and another - (2011) 1 SCC 343.
        13. In the case of Kajal (supra), this Court in case of permanent
disability, to decide the just compensation, the principles have been          D
summarized, whereby the compensation may be awarded in the heads
of ‘loss of earning’, ‘medical expenses, transportation, special diet,
attendant charges’, ‘loss or diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of
a particular part of the body’ and ‘loss of future earning capacity’,
damages, pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary have to be assessed while          E
it is impossible to equate human sufferings and personal deprivation with
money. This Court said attendant charges @ Rs.2,500/- p.m. awarded
by the High Court is inadequate, however enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- with
two attendants, total Rs.10,000/- p.m. for whole life and calculated the
compensation applying the multiplier of 18. The Court further said
compensation may also be awarded for non-pecuniary damages including           F
pain, suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects. Therefore,
the compensation on account of injuries, causing 100% disability, looking
to the facts of the case at hand, is required to be determined, applying
the ratio of the said judgment.
       14. The High Court in the impugned order observed that the              G
claimant has now started practice as an advocate, therefore, future loss
of earning has been calculated only for 10 years, applying the multiplier
of 16, without looking to the facts that claimant cannot perform the work
of advocacy similar to the other advocates by attending the cases in
different Courts. The attendant charges have been allowed only for 20          H
12             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A    years with one attendant. In fact, not only for determination of future
     loss of earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method should
     be followed. The multiplier method has been recognized as most realistic
     and reasonable because it has been decided looking to the age, inflation
     rate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs. Thus, for determination
     of just compensation to ensure justice with the family of deceased or the
B
     injured as the case may be the compensation can be determined applying
     said method. Therefore, in our view the Tribunal while granting the
     compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and
     attendant charges only for 20 years was not justified. In fact, the said
     amount should be determined applying the multiplier method.
C           15. It is also relevant to observe that in the judgment of Sarla
     Verma (Smt.) & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
     Another - (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company
     Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others - (2017) 16 SCC 680, while
     replacing the schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, it is not made clear what
D    multiplier would be applicable below the age of 15. In the case of Kajal
     (supra), the injured was 12 years of the age, however, the multiplier of
     18 has been applied. Therefore, taking guidance from the judgment of
     Kajal (supra), for determination of the compensation in the present
     case, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable.
E            16. In view of the said legal position, the compensation can be
     assessed in pecuniary heads i.e. the loss of future earning, medical
     expenses including future medical expenses, attendant charges and also
     in the head of transportation including future transportation. In the non-
     pecuniary heads, the compensation can be computed for the mental and
     physical pain and sufferings present and in future, loss of amenities of
F    life including loss of marital bliss, loss of expectancy in life, inconvenience,
     hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life
     etc.
           17. On perusal of the record out of the pecuniary heads MACT
     has not awarded any amount in future loss of earning even having 100%
G    permanent disability while the High Court granted Rs.6,00,000/- only for
     10 years because the appellant is now practicing as an advocate in the
     Court accepting his earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. From the pleadings
     and evidence brought, it is clear that the father of the appellant was a
     Professor and the mother was an IAS officer. The claimant has been
H    nurtured and brought up in a status enjoyed by his parents. He was
     ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON &                                  13
           ANOTHER [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

planning to become an Executive or IAS officer. On account of the               A
injuries in temporal region and the permanent disability suffered, he was
unable to do his studies as expected or planned. After sincere efforts he
could have passed the LL. B and started the advocate profession. A
judicial notice can be taken of the fact that for a proficient advocate the
person must be physically fit as he is required to move frequently to
                                                                                B
attend the professional work reaching from one Court to other, and for
movements to complete other professional commitments. Looking to
the nature of injuries and the permanent disablement which the claimant
has suffered, i.e., lower limb is completely paralyzed while his upper
limb is partially paralyzed having 100% permanent disability resulting in
bodily movements being hampered. The capacity of the claimant being             C
an advocate cannot be equated with other practicing advocate having
no deformity in the same profession. The claimant is required to make
extraordinary efforts to attend the proceedings in the Court and to come
up to the expectations of the client. The disablement suffered to the
claimant is for whole life and in the said fact, in our considered view, the
                                                                                D
future loss of earning calculated by the High Court only for 10 years is
not justified. If we accept the future loss of earning Rs.5,000/- per month
as decided by the High Court which annually comes to Rs.60,000/- and
apply the multiplier of 18 as applicable looking to the age, then the sum
comes to Rs.10,80,000/-, in the said head.
       18. In the head of medical expenses, the MACT or the High                E
Court has not awarded any compensation presumably because the mother
of the claimant who was minor at the time of accident may have claimed
the amount of medical expenses being an IAS officer. But now the
claimant has become major, and looking to the nature of injuries, future
medical expenses that includes the attendant charges, use of diapers            F
due to loss of urination senses is required to be calculated including
future medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,92,000/- in the head
of attendant charges @ 1,000/- per month. While the High Court
proceeded on the premises that the rate of the attendant charges is
variable after every five years, however, the Court calculated the amount
@ Rs.2,000/- thereafter @ Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of 20               G
years and accordingly determined Rs.9,00,000/- making enhancement
of Rs.7,08,000/- in the said head. As discussed, if we apply the multiplier
method and in view of the judgment of Kajal (supra), we accept the
rate of attendant charges Rs.5000/- per month for 12 hours, looking to
the nature of injuries and disability the claimant is required two attendants   H
14             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A    at least within 24 hours then the expenses in the head of attendant charges
     comes to Rs.10,000/- per month. If we apply the multiplier of 18, the
     amount comes to Rs.21,60,000/-.
             19. Similarly for medical expenses in the head of physiotherapy
     required to the claimant, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,88,000/- @ Rs.50
B    per day. The High Court granted lumpsum amount of Rs.8,00,000/-
     including the expenses for diapers. In our considered opinion, the said
     amount is not adequate. In these days the physiotherapist would charge
     at least Rs.150/- per day to treat the patient for one hour which monthly
     comes to Rs.4,500/- and annually 54,000/-, applying the multiplier of 18,
     the amount in the head of physiotherapy charges comes to Rs.9,72,000/
C    -. For the purpose of use of diapers, regular medical check-up and medical
     expenses if we further add Rs.2,00,000/- then in the head of future
     medical expenses the amount comes to Rs.11,72,000/-.
             20. Under the head of transportation, the MACT awarded only
     Rs.15,000/- for the visit Delhi to Chandigarh which is enhanced by the
D    High Court to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The High Court further awarded
     Rs.1,00,000/- in the head of motorized wheel chair. In our opinion, during
     the life span grant of amount for motorized vehicle only for once is not
     just. Similarly, in the head of transportation in future, therefore, we enhance
     the said amount in lumpsum to Rs.2,50,000/- in place of Rs.1,00,000/- +
E    Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the High Court.
            21. Under the head “non-pecuniary damages”, the claimant has
     faced the pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries. It is
     to observe that to award compensation under the head “pain, shock and
     suffering”, multiple factors are required to be considered from the date
F    of accident, which include the prolonged hospitalization and regular
     medical assistance, nature of the injuries sustained, the operations
     underwent and the consequent pain, discomfort and suffering.
     Simultaneously, he has to suffer post-accident agony for whole life,
     including the amenities of life, which he can enjoy as a normal man but
     unable to do so on account of permanent disability. In the era of
G    competition, he can perform better as a normal man but is unable to
     compete with others. Therefore, under the head “pain, shock and
     suffering”, amount of compensation deserves to be granted.
           22. The MACT awarded Rs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of
     expectation of life, loss of marital bliss, total loss of enjoyment of life and
H
     ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON &                                   15
           ANOTHER [J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.]

amenities of life, permanent disability, pain and sufferings while the High      A
Court granted the same amount bifurcating it in the head of loss of
amenities in life and marital bliss to Rs.3,00,000/- while special diet
Rs.1,00,000/- making the total Rs.4,00,000/-.
       23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature
of injuries in our considered opinion, the appellant is entitled for a sum of    B
Rs.4,00,000/- in the head of loss of amenities of life and marital bliss,
pain and sufferings, loss of enjoyment and loss of expectancy, Rs.1,00,000/
- as awarded by the High Court is maintained in the head of special diet.
Thus, in the non-pecuniary heads, the compensation as determined comes
to Rs.5,00,000/-.
                                                                                 C
      24. In view of the foregoing calculation, the amount determined
for payment of the compensation in pecuniary heads comes to
Rs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniary heads the sum comes to
Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, in our view, the total compensation comes to
Rs.51,62,000/-. If we deduct the amount of Rs.23,20,000/- awarded by
the High Court then the enhanced amount comes to Rs.28,42,000/-.                 D

      25. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
hereinabove. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6.5% p.a.
from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

                                                                                 E
Divya Pandey                                            Appeal partly allowed.




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H