JAKIR HUSSEINversusSABIR & ORS.

                     [2015] 2 S.C.R. 460


A                     JAKIR HUSSEIN

                              V.

                       SABIR & ORS.
B             (Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2015)

                    FEBRUARY 18, 2015

      [V.GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
c      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Compensation -
  Claimant-driver sustained grievous injuries whereby his
  right arm suffered compound fractures preventing him
  from performing his regular work as a driver -
  Assessment of compensation - Held: It is just and
0
  reasonable to consider his daily wage at Rs. 150/day as
  he was a driver of the motor vehicle which is skilled job
  - Though doctor assessed permanent disability of
  claimant at 55% since his hand was completely crushed
E and deformed, loss of earning due to permanent disability
  may be treated as 100% loss caused to him since he
  would never be able to work as a driver again - Rs.
  2 lakhs awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.2
  lakhs awarded towards future medical expenses - Rs.1.5
F lakhs awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1.50
  lakhs awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment
  of life - Award also passed on account of special diet,
  attendant expenses during the period of treatment and
  towards transportation.
G
       Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. It is just and reasonable to consider the
    appellant's daily wage at Rs.150/- per day (Rs.4,500/-

H                            460
              JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                       461


 per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum) as he was a          A
 driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. The
 Tribunal has wrongly determined the loss of income
 during the course of his treatment at Rs.51,000/- for
 a period of one year and five months. The same is
 enhanced to Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months). The        B
 appellant was medically examined in order to prove
 his medical condition and the percentage of
 permanent disability. The doctor who treated him
 stated that the appellant has one long injury from his
 arm up to the wrist. Due to this injury, the appellant     C
 had great difficulty to move his shoulder, wrist and
 elbow and pus was coming out of the injury even
 two years after the accident and the treatment taken
 by him. The doctor further stated in his evidence that
                                                            0
the appellant got delayed joined fracture in the
humerus bone of his right hand with wiring and
nailing and that he had suffered 55% disability and
cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the
same. He was once again operated upon during the            E
pendency of the appeal before the High Court and
he was hospitalised for 10 days. In view of the
doctor's evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court
erroneously took the extent of permanent disability
at 30% and 55% respectively for the calculation of          F
amount towards the loss of future earning capacity.
However, the appellant was a driver and driving the
motor vehicle was the only means of livelihood for
himself as well as the members of his family. The
High Court also clearly observed that his right hand        G
was completely crushed and deformed. When it
comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability,
the same may be treated as 100% loss caused to the
appellant since he would never be able to work as
                                                            H
462        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A a driver again. The contention of the respondent
  Insurance Company that the appellant could take up
  any other alternative employment is no justification
  to avoid their vicarious liability. Thus, by applying the
  appropriate multiplier, the total loss of future
B earnings of the appellant would be at Rs.54,000 X 16
  = Rs.8,64,000/-. [Paras 14, 15] [473-F-H; 474-A-H]
      2. The facts, circumstances and evidence on record
      clearly showed that a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was
c     incurred during medical treatment of the appellant.
      Keeping in mind his medical condition and future
      medical needs and requirements, Rs.2,00,000/- is
      awarded towards future medical treatment &
      incidental expenses in favour of the appellant. A sum
D     of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted towards the pain,
      suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the
      appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in
      a position to move freely, an award of Rs.1,50,000/-
      is awarded towards loss of amenities & enjoyment
E     of life and happiness. Further amount of Rs.20,000/-
      is awarded towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards
      attendant expenses during the period of treatment
      and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation. A sum of
      Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards costs incurred
F     during pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal and the
      High Court erred in granting interest rate at only 7%
      p.a. and 8% p.a. respectively on the total
      compensation amount. The interest @ 9% p.a. is
      awarded on the compensation. [Paras 16, 18 and 19]
G     475-D-E; 476-A-F]

      Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343:
      2010 (13) SCR 179; Sar/a Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
      Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009
      (5) SCR 1098; Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National
H
              JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                      463


Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 389; Municipal A
Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar
Tragedy (2011) 14 SCC 481: 2011 (16) SCR 1 - relied on.

R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995)
1 SCC 551: 1995 (1) SCR 75; Nizam's Institute of Medical B
Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1: 2009
(9) SCR 313; Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC
274:2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 499; National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007) 2 SCC 349: 2007 C
(2) SCR 117 - referred to.

                  Case Law Reference

    1995 (1) SCR 75              referred to.   Para 6
                                                            D
    2009 (9) SCR 313             referred to.   Para 7

    2010 (13) SCR 179            relied on.     Para 8

    2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 499      referred to.   Para 10
                                                            E
    2007 (2) SCR 117             referred to.   Para 12

    2009 (5) SCR 1098            relied on.     Para 15

    (2013) a sec 389             relied on.     Para 17
                                                            F
    2011 (16) SCR 1              relied on.     Para 18

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
2006 of 2015

    From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2013 of G
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3414 of 2010.

    V. K. Sidharthan for the Appellant.
                                                            H
464        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A          Dr. Meera Agarwal, Amarjeet D. Singh, R. C. Mishra
      for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
      2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant
  against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2013 passed
  in M.A. No. 3414 of 2010 by the High Court of Madhya
  Pradesh at Indore, wherein the High Court partly allowed
C the appeal of the appellant by modifying the award
  passed by the MACT, Mandsor, M.P., in claim case No.
  3 of 2009 dated 29.07.2010.

      3.       The relevant facts of the case are stated as
D under:

               On 12.11.2008 at about 6.39 p.m., Jakir
  Hussein, the appellant herein, was driving a Tempo
  bearing registration No. MP-14-G-0547 from Krishi Upaj
E Mandi, Mandsor to Multanpura village, Madhya Pradesh.
  A few others were also riding along with the appellant,
  namely, Santosh, Kumari Krishna, Smt. Paipa Bai etc.
  While the appellant was on the way, a tractor bearing
  registration No. MP 14-K- 4886 which was driven by
F Sabir-respondent no.1 herein, in rash and negligent
  manner hit the appellant's tempo which was coming from
  the opposite direction with enormous force. Due to the
  impact of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous
  injuries. The right arm of the appellant had severe
G compound fractures preventing him from performing his
  regular work as a driver hereafter. At the time of the
  said accident, the appellant was earning Rs.4,500/- per
  month by working as a driver.
H        4. The appellant filed Claim Petition No. 3 of 2009
               JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                        465
                [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before     A
the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Additional First
Member, Mandsor, Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal
determined the permanent disability suffered by the
appellant on account of the motor vehicle accident at
30% and his monthly income was taken at Rs.3,000/-            B
for the purpose of assessing annual income of the
appellant to compute his loss of future earnings. On the
basis of the annual income, his future loss of income
due to permanent disability suffered by him was
estimated at Rs.1,72,800/- and loss of income at              C
Rs.51,0001··. Medical expenses was estimated at
Rs.1,80,000/-. The total compensation of Rs.4,38,000/-
with an interest at the rate of 7% p.a. was awarded to
the appellant by the Tribunal as against a claim of
                                                              0
Rs.8,80,000/- made by him.
      5. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal regarding
 inadequate compensation, the appellant filed M.A. No.
 3414 of2010 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
 at Indore. The High Court opined that the income of          E
 appellant has been taken on the lower side by the
 Tribunal and determined the same at Rs.4,000/- per
month. The High Court after re-determination of the
compensation held that the appellant is entitled to an
enhancement of Rs.1,77,200/- towards permanent                F
disability and addition of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and
suffering. In addition to that amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/
- was awarded towards medical expenses. The High
Court has further awarded Rs.40,000/- towards medical         G
expenses during the pendency of the appeal. Further, it
has awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the
enhanced compensation. Being unsatisfied with the
enhanced compensation by the High Court, the appellant
filed this appeal.                                            H
466         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A          6. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr.
      Parameshwara, who is appointed to assist this Court as
      amicus curiae has contended that the compensation
      awarded by both the Tribunal and the High Court is wholly
      inadequate. It is submitted by him that the High Court has
 B    committed a serious error in law in not awarding just and
      reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant by
      taking various factual aspects such as permanent disability
      suffered by him, medical evidence and keeping in view the
      law on the relevant aspects for quantifying just and
C     reasonable compensation both under the heads of
      pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It is further urged
      by him that on the motor vehicle accident caused by the
      respondent-driver on account of rash and negligent driving
      of the vehicle, the appellant has become permanently
 0
      disabled due to which he will not be able to get suitable
      employment and lead a normal life in future. It is further
      contended by him that the future medical treatment and
      care of the appellant is very much necessary which will
 E    also be on the higher side. In cases where the claimant
      suffering from either total or partial permanent disablement,
      the term 'compensation' used under Section 166 of the
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would not only include the
      expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the
 F     amount likely to be incurred by the appellant for future
      medical treatment/care and necessary assistance on
       account of permanent disablement caused to him on
       account of grievous injury of loss of his right arm in the
       said accident. Reliance was placed by the learned amicus
 G     curiae on the decision of this Court in the case of R.D.
       Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited1,
      wherein it was held as under:-


 H    1 (1995) 1 sec 551
              JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                         467
               [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

   "9.Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of              A
   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 are capable of             B
   being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-
   pecu n ia ry damages are those which are
   incapable of being assessed by arithmetical
   calculations. In order to appreciate t.wo concepts
   pecuniary damages may include expenses                     c
   incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
   (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of
   trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary
   damages are concerned, they may include (i)
                                                              D
   damages for mental and physical shock, pain
   and 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         E
   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,     F
   disappointment, frustration and fr!ental stress in
   life."

    7. It is further contended by him that the monthly
income of the appellant has been erroneously taken as G
Rs.3,000/- by the Tribunal and Rs.4,000/- by the High
Court when he was actually earning Rs.4,500/- per month
while working as the driver. The learned amicus curiae
placed reliance upon the case of Nizam's Institute of
                                                              H
468     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka 2, wherein,
  the three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with a
  case arising out of the complaint filed under the
  Consumer Protection Act, 1986, enhanced the
  compensation awarded by the National Consumer
B Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs.1.5 lacs to Rs.1
  crore. The observations made by the Bench at para 39
  can appropriately be applied to the case on hand, wherein
  it is stated as under:-

c      "88. 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
D      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
E      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.

       89.lt must also be borne in mind that life has its
F      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
G      followed by an equally spectacular fall. and the
       distance between the two (as in this very case)
       is a minute or a yard.


           <:r,c 1
                JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                      469
                 [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

    90.At the same time we often find that a person          A
    injured in an accident leaves his family in greater
    distress, vis- '-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            B
    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                  c
    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."
                                                             D
                            (emphasis laid by this Court)

     8. Further, with regard to award just and reasonable
compensation both under pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damages to the victims of motor-vehicle accidents, the       E
learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
& Anr. 3, wherein it was held as under:-

    "5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988        F
    ('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            G
    damages is to make good the loss suffered as
    a result of wrong done as far as money can do


3 (2011)1 sec 343                                            H
470         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A          so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
          The court or 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
B         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
c         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."
D                                 (emphasis laid by this Court)

            9. It is further contended by the learned Amicus
       Curiae that the appellant was working as a driver and
       getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. However, the
E     Tribunal proceeded to determine his income at Rs.36,000/
      - per annum solely on the basis that there was no
      evidence on record to prove the claim of the appellant
      that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month as a driver
      of the motor vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of any
F     cogent evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court ought
      to have taken the appellant's annual income at Rs.54,000/
      - as he was working as a driver of the motor vehicle till
      the accident occurred for the purpose of determination
      of compensation towards the loss of future earnings of
G     the appellant, as he had 100% permanent disablement
      having regard to the nature of work he was doing at the
      time of the accident. Accordingly, it should be at
      Rs.54,000/- per annum for proper quantification of future
H     loss of earnings as he had suffered 100% functional
                JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                    471
                 [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

disability.                                                   A

     10. It is further contended by him that the award
passed by the Tribunal for future medical expenses was
wholly inadequate. Reliance was placed on the decision
of this Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal             B
Singh4 , wherein this Court held that in a case where
injury to a victim requires periodical medical expenses, it
is not possible for a fresh award to be passed or to
review a previous award when the medical expenses are
incurred after finalisation of the compensation               C
proceedings. It was further held that the only alternative
is that at the time of passing of the final award, the
Tribunal/Court should consider such eventuality and fix
the compensation under the above said head accordingly.
Therefore, it is submitted by him that it will be just and    D
reasonable for this Court to award a further sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant for his future treatment. If
the said amount is deposited in fixed deposit, the interest
accruing on it will take care of future medical treatment
and other ancillary expenses.                                 E

     11. With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma
which have been caused to the appellant due to his
crushed hand, it is contended that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It F
is not in dispute that the appellant had remained in the
hospital for a period of over three months. It is not
possible for the courts to make a precise assessment of
the pain and trauma suffered by a person whose arm
got crushed and has suffered permanent disability due G
to the accident that occurred. The appellant will have to
struggle and face different challenges as being

4 (2003) 2 sec 274                                            H
472          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such cases,
  the Tribunals and the courts should make a broad
  estimate for the purpose of determining the amount of
  just and reasonable compensation under pecuniary loss.
  Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a
B young man of 33 years. For the rest of his life, the
  appellant will suffer from the trauma of not being able to
  do his normal work of his job as a driver. Therefore, it
  is submitted that to meet the ends of justice it would be
  just and proper to award him a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
C towards pain, suffering and trauma caused to him and a
  further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the loss of amenities
  and enjoyment of life.

       12. On the other hand, Dr. Meera Agarwal, the
D learned counsel for the respondent no.3 - The New India
  Assurance Company Ltd herein contended that this Court
  has held in a catena of cases that the percentage of
  loss of earning capacity should correspond to the
  percentage of loss of functional/physical disability, if the
E loss of functional disability is 55%, the loss of earning
  capacity should also be 55% of the income of the injured/
  claimant. In support of the above contentions, reliance
  was placed by her on the decision of this Court in the
F case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir
  Ahmed5•

      13. It is further contended on behalf of the Insurance
  Company that the amount of compensation awarded by
  the Tribunal was just and reasonable, still the High Court
G in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has erroneously
  taken a generous view and enhanced the amount of
  compensation and therefore, does not warrant for

H     5 (2007) 2 sec 349
                JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                        473
                 [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

enhancement of compensation as claimed by the A
appellant.

       14. We have carefully examined the facts of the
 case and material evidence on record in the light of the
 rival legal contentions urged before us by both the learned      B
 counsel on behalf of the parties to find out as to whether
 the appellant is entitled for further enhancement of
 compensation? We have perused the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court and the award of
the Tribunal. After careful examination of the facts and          C
 legal evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the
 appellant was working as a driver at the time of the
 accident and no doubt, he could be earning Rs.4,500/-
 per month. As per the notification issued by the State
 Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 3 of the              D
 Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a person employed as a
driver earns Rs.128/- per day, however the wage rate as
per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick
and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the
compensation under the future loss of income. Minimum             E
wage, as per State Government Notification alone may
at times fail to meet the requirements that are needed
to maintain the basic quality of life since it is not inclusive
of factors of cost of living index. Therefore, we are of          F
the view that it would be just and reasonable to consider
the appellant's daily wage at Rs.150/- per day (Rs.4,500/
- per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum) as he was a
driver of the motor vehicle which is a skilled job. Further,
the Tribunal has wrongly determined the loss of income            G
during the course of his treatment at Rs.51,000/- for a
period of one year and five months. We have to enhance
the same to Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months).

    15. Further, with respect to the permanent disablement H
474      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A suffered by the appellant, Mr. K. Parameshwar, the learned
  amicus curiae, has rightly submitted that the appellant was
  examined by Dr. P.K. Upadhyay in order to prove his
  medical condition and the percentage of permanent
  disability. The doctor who has treated him stated that the
B appellant has one long injury from his arm up to the wrist.
  Due to this injury, the doctor has stated that the appellant
  had great difficulty to move his shoulder, wrist and elbow
  and pus was coming out of the injury even two years
  after the accident and the treatment taken by him. The
C doctor further stated in his evidence that the appellant
  got delayed joined fracture in the humerus bone of his
  right hand with wiring and nailing and that he had suffered
  55% disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future
D due to the same. He was once again operated upon during
  the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and he
  was hospitalised for 10 days. The appellant was present
  in person in the High Court and it was observed and
  noticed by the High Court that the right hand of the
E appellant was completely crushed and deformed. In view
  of the doctor's evidence in this case, the Tribunal and the
  High Court have erroneously taken the extent of
  permanent disability at 30% and 55% respectively for the
  calculation of amount towards the loss of future earning
F capacity. No doubt, the doctor has assessed the
  permanent disability of the appellant at 55%. However, it
  is important to consider the relevant fact namely that the
  appellant is a driver and driving the motor vehicle is the
  only means of livelihood for himself as well as the
G members of his family. Further, it is very crucial to note
  that the High Court has clearly observed that his right
  hand was completely crushed and deformed. In the case
  of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), this Court
  specifically gave the illustration of a driver who has
H
                 JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                        475
                  [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

 permanent disablement of hand and stated that the loss A
 of future earnings capacity would be virtually 100%.
 Therefore, clearly when it comes to loss of earning due
to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100%
 loss caused to the appellant since he will never be able
to work as a driver again. The contention of the respondent B
 Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any
other alternative employment is no justification to avoid
their vicarious liability. Hence, the loss of earning is
determined by us at Rs.54,000/- per annum. Thus, by ·
applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles C
laid down by this Court in the case of Sar/a Verma &
Ors. v. Delhi Transport .Corporation & Anr. 6, the total
loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs.54,000
X 16   = Rs.8,64,000/-.
                                                                D
     16. From the facts, circumstances and evidence on
record it is clear that a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was incurred
during medical treatment of the appellant. Keeping in mind
his medical condition and future medical needs and
requirements, we further award Rs.2,00,000/- towards            E
future medical treatment & incidental expenses in favour
of the appellant by applying the legal principles laid down
by this Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh
(supra).
                                                                F
     17. Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr.
v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.7, wherein this Court
examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in
mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i)
pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. G
Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of
Rekha Jain & Anr. (supra) and considering the suffering
6 (2009) e sec 121
7 (2013) a sec 389                                             H
476        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in
  future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant
  Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which
  will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life.
  Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we
B additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities
  & enjoyment of life and happiness.

       18. We further award an amount of Rs.20,000/-
   towards special diet, Rs.40,000/- towards attendant
 C expenses during the period of treatment and Rs.20,000/-
   towards transportation.

           19. Since, the claim of the appellant has been pending
      for several years before the courts, we are of the view to
 0    award a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards costs incurred during
      pendency of the appeal.

       20. As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on
   the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the
 E view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in
   granting interest rate at only 7% p.a. and 8% p.a.
   respectively on the total compensation amount instead
   of 9% p.a. by applying the decision of this Court in
   Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of
 F Victims of Uph.aar Tragedy8. Accordingly, we award the
   interest @9% p.a. on the compensation determined in
   the present appeal.
       21. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to
   the compensation figured out in the following table
 G under different heads:




 H a (2011)14 sec 481
               JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR               477
                [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

SL.No.              Particulars      Amount of       A
                                   compensation
 1.      Loss of future income
         due to disability         Rs.8,64,000/-
 2.      Loss of income during                       B
         period of treatment       Rs.76,500/-

 3.      Pain and suffering        Rs.1,50,000/-

 4.      Medical Expenses          Rs.2,00,000/-
                                                     c
 5.      Attendant charges
         during the period of
         treatment for 17 months    Rs.40,000/-

 6.      Transportation charges                      D
         during the period of
         treatment                 Rs.20,000/-
 7.      Special diet and
         nutrition as advised by
                                                     E
         the doctor during the
         period of treatment       Rs.20,000/-
 8.      Permanent Disability/
         loss of amenities,
         happiness and enjoyment                     F
         of life                   Rs.1,50,000/-
 9.      Future medical expenses   Rs.2,00,000/-


 10.     Expenses during                             G
         pendency of appeal        Rs.40,000/-

         TOTAL                     Rs.17,60,500/-


                                                     H
478     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A      Thus, the total compensation payable to the
  appellant by the respondent Insurance Company will
  be Rs.17,60,500/- as per amount awarded against
  different heads mentioned above in the table with
  interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded
B by this Court from the date of filing of the claim
  petition till the date of payment.

      22. Since the claim petition has been pending
  in the courts for the last 6 years, we direct the
C Insurance Company to either pay the compensation
  awarded in this appeal by way of demand draft or
  deposit the same before the concerned MACT within
  four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
  this Judgment and submit the compliance report for
D the perusal of this Court.

      23. When this matter was listed, neither the
  counsel on record nor the arguing counsel on behalf
  of the appellant was present on a number of dates
E of hearing despite granting several opportunities to
  him. Therefore, keeping in view Article 39A of the
  Constitution of India, this Court vide order dated
  19.01.2015 appointed Mr. K. Parameshwara, as
  amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant to assist
F us to determine just and reasonable compensation.
  In pursuant to the same, the learned amicus curiae
  has given his valuable assistance to this Court by
  addressing the arguments and submitting the written
  submissions. Therefore, it is just and proper for this
G Court to direct the Legal Services Authority, State
  of Madhya Pradesh to pay a nominal fee of
  Rs.10, 0001- to him by sending a demand draft in
  the name of 'K. Parameshwar' within four weeks
H
                JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR                     479
                 [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

from the date of receipt of the copy of this A
Judgment. The Registry is directed to send a copy
of this judgment to the Legal Services Authority,
State of Madhya Pradesh to comply with our order.

         The appeal is allowed in the above said            B
terms.

Devika Gujral                            Appeal allowed.