KAJALversusJAGDISH CHAND & ORS.

622                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    3 S.C.R. 622                [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A                                    KAJAL
                                        v.
                          JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2020)
B                             FEBRUARY 05, 2020
           [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
             Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just compensation – Personal
      injury cases – Victim (minor) was travelling on a tractor with her
      parents when it was hit by a truck – She suffered serious injuries
C
      resulting in damage to her brain – Disability was assessed as 100%
      – Disability certificate stated that as per assessment her I.Q. is less
      than 20% of a child of her age and her social age is only of a 9
      month old child – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded
      Rs.11,08,501/- and held that since there was violation of terms of
D     policy, the insurance company would pay the amount but would be
      entitled to recover the same from the owner – High Court enhanced
      it to Rs.25,78,501/- – On appeal, held: Injuries cause deprivation
      to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages – Damages
      may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the
      claimant in an accident – Compensation should neither be assessed
E
      very conservatively, nor assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to
      make it a bounty to the claimant – Court while assessing the
      compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and
      the loss caused by such deprivation – Such compensation is what is
      termed as just compensation – Rs.62,27,000/- is awarded to the
F     claimant, inter alia under expenses relating to treatment;
      hospitalization and transportation; loss of earnings (family
      members); loss of future earnings; pain, suffering & loss of
      amenities etc., with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of
      the claim petition till payment of the amount – Insurance company
      entitled to adjust the amount already paid and to recover the amount
G
      from the owner in terms of the award of MACT, which was not
      challenged either before High Court or Supreme Court – Amount
      awarded is more than the amount claimed – In motor accident claim
      petitions, the Court must award just compensation and, in case, the
      just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be
H     awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.
                                        622
              KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.                              623


     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Minor Claimant – Compensation            A
– Guidelines for investment of – Discussed.
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Grant of interest
– Held: Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing
of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest
should again be from the date of filing of the petition– Only if the     B
appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the
decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence of
the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be awarded
from a later date – While doing so, the tribunals/High Courts must
give reasons why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of
the petition.                                                            C

      Disposing of the appeal, the Court
     HELD:1.1 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation etc.
       Injuries cause deprivation to the body which entitles the         D
claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary according to
the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident.
On account of the injuries, the claimant may suffer consequential
losses such as (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment which
may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet,              E
attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to the pleasures of
life by loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future
earning capacity. Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary, but all have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise. The
court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to
compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On          F
the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very
conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also
not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty
to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation
should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss             G
caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed
as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed
for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the
injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout
his/her life. They should not be just token damages. [Paras 5,
6][629-D-H]                                                              H
624            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A            1.2 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
      medicines, transportation etc. There is no dispute with regard to
      the long period of treatment and hospitalisation of this young
      girl. Limiting the amount only to the bills which have been paid
      in the name of the claimant only, would not be reasonable.
      Therefore, the amount payable for actual medical expenses is
B
      increased from Rs.1,38,501/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. The amount
      awarded for transportation at Rs.50,000/- is reasonable.
      Therefore, under this head Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded.
      [Para 19][634-E, G]

C           1.3 Loss of earnings
            The appellant placed material to show that the minimum
      wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs.4846/- per month. This
      would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on
      becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works
D     to be Rs.6784.40/- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per annum. Applying
      the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.14,65,430.40, which is
      rounded off to Rs.14,66,000/-. Further, in the hospital the claimant
      would have had at least two attendants, and taking the cost of
      each at Rs.500/- per day for 51 days, Rs.51,000/- is awarded to
      her. [Paras 20, 21][635-B-C, F]
E
            1.3 Attendant Charges
           The cost of one attendant is assessed at Rs.5,000/- and
      she will require two attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/-
      per month, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, and using
F     the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.21,60,000/- for attendant
      charges for her entire life. [Para 25][637-D]
            1.4 Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities
            The courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in
G     a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental
      disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when
      awarding compensation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances
      of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the
      matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child
      should be at least Rs.15,00,000/. [Paras 26, 27][638-A, D]
H
             KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.                           625


     1.4 Loss of marriage prospects                                  A

     The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of marriage
prospects. No reason to interfere with this finding. [Paras 28]
[638-E]

     1.5 Future medical treatment                                    B
      Keeping in view her young age and assuming she would
live another 50-60 years, it would not be unjust to award her
Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses. [Paras 29][638-G]

     1.6 How the compensation should be invested?                    C
       The tribunal while awarding the compensation stated that
the amount payable to the share of the minor victim would be
kept in a Fixed Deposit till she attains the age of 18 years. The
High Court while enhancing the amount of compensation directed
that the enhanced amount be paid to the appellant within 45 days.    D
This is totally contrary to the guidelines laid down by Supreme
Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors. These
guidelines protect the rights of the minors, claimants who are
under some disability and also widows and illiterate person who
                                                                     E
may be deprived of the compensation paid to them in lump sum
by unscrupulous elements. These victims may not be able to
invest their monies properly and in such cases the MACT as
well the High courts must ensure that investments are made in
nationalised banks to get a high rate of interest. The interest in
most cases is sufficient to cover the monthly expenses. In special   F
cases, for reasons to be given in writing, the MACT or the trial
court may release such amount as is required. These guidelines
are reiterated and it is directed that they should be followed by
all the tribunals and High Courts to ensure that the money of the
victims is not frittered away. [Para 30][638-H; 639-A; 640-D-F]
                                                                     G
     General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
     Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.
     (1994) 2 SCC 176 – relied on.

                                                                     H
626            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           1.7 Interest
             Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing
      of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest
      should again be from the date of filing of the petition. It is only if
      the appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or
B     the decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence
      of the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be
      awarded from a later date. However, while doing so, the tribunals/
      High Courts must give reasons why interest is not being paid
      from the date of filing of the petition. Therefore, the entire amount
      of compensation including the amount enhanced by Supreme
C     Court shall carry an interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of
      filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount.
      [Para 31][641-B-C]
            1.8 Relief
D           Rs.62,27,000/- is awarded to the claimant. This amount shall
      carry an interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
      petition till payment/deposit of the amount. The insurance
      company shall be entitled to adjust the amount already paid.
      Further, the insurance company shall also be entitled to recover
      the amount from the owner in terms of the award of the MACT,
E     which has not been challenged either before the High Court or
      us. The amount awarded is more than the amount claimed.
      However, in motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award
      just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more
      than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where
F     the claimant is a minor. [Paras 32, 33][641-D, G-H; 642-A]
            M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala
            Devi and others 1980 ACJ 55 (SC); R.D. Hattangadi
            v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 :
            [1995] 1 SCR 75; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others
G           (2011) 1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; K. Suresh v.
            New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2012)
            12 SCC 274 : [2012] 11 SCR 414 – relied on.
            Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami AIR
            1962 SC 1 : [1962] SCR 929; Municipal Corporation
H
               KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS.                            627


        of Delhi v. Subhagwati and Ors., 1966 ACJ 57; U.P.              A
        State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok
        Chandra and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362 : [1996] 2 Suppl.
        SCR 443; Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande and Ors.
        (2017) 3 SCC 351; Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager,
        The National Insurance Company Limited and Ors.
                                                                        B
        2013 (10) SCALE 668 – referred to.
        Phillips v. Western Railway Co. (1874) 4 QBD 406;
        Mediana [1900] AC 113; H. West & Son Ltd. v.
        Shephard 1963 2 WLR 1359; Ward v. James (1965) 1
        All ER 563; Taylor v. O’Connor 1971 AC 115 –
        referred to.                                                    C

                       Case Law Reference
1980 ACJ 55 (SC)                 relied on              Para 14
[1995] 1 SCR 75                  relied on              Para 15
                                                                        D
[2010] 13 SCR 179                relied on              Para 16
[2012] 11 SCR 414                relied on              Para 17
[1962] SCR 929                   referred to            Para 22
1966 ACJ 57                      referred to            Para 24
                                                                        E
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 443          referred to            Para 24
(2017) 3 SCC 351                 referred to            Para 24
2013 (10) SCALE 668              referred to            Para 26
(1994) 2 SCC 176                 relied on              Para 30         F
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 735 of
2020.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2018 of the High Court
for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No. 23736 of
2017 in FAO No. 4863 of 2010.                                           G
        Dhruv Gautam, Ms. Charu Ambwani, Advs. for the Appellant.
     S.L. Gupta, Kuldeep Singh Tomar, Varinder Kumar Sharma,
Ms. Gunjan Sharma, Bikas Chandra, Advs. for the Respondents.

                                                                        H
628             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
             1. Kajal was a bright young girl. She used to attend school, play
      with her friends and lead a normal life like anyother child. Unfortunately,
      on 18th October, 2007, while Kajal was travelling on a tractor with her
B     parents, the tractor was hit by a truck which was driven rashly. In the
      said accident, Kajal suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her
      brain. This has had very serious consequences on her. She was examined
      at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,
      Chandigarh (PGI, Chandigarh for short), for assessment of her disability.
C     According to the said report, because of head injury Kajal is left with a
      very low I.Q. and severe weakness in all her four limbs, suffers from
      severe hysteria and severe urinary incontinence. Her disability has been
      assessed as 100%.
             2. Dr. Chhabra(PW-4), who was one of the members of the Board
D     which issued the disability certificate (Ex.P6) stated that as per the
      assessment her I.Q. is less than 20% of a child of her age and her social
      age is only of a 9 month old child. This means that Kajal while lying on
      the bed will grow up to be an adult with all the physical and biological
      attributes which a woman would get on attaining adulthood, including
      menstruation etc., but her mind will remain of a 9 month old child.
E     Basically, she will not understand what is happening all around her.
             3. How does one assess compensation in such a case? No amount
      of money can compensate this child for the injuries suffered by her. She
      can never be put back in the same position. However, compensation has
      to be determined in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
F     (for short the Act). The Act requires determination of payment of just
      compensation and it is the duty of the court to ensure that she is paid
      compensation which is just.
             4. Kajal through her father filed a claim petition, under the Act.The
      Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT for short) awarded
G     Rs.11,08,501/- and held that since there was violation of the terms of
      policy the insurance company would pay the amount but would be entitled
      to recover the same from the owner. The High Court enhanced the
      award amount to Rs.25,78,501/- under the following heads:

H
  KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]                                629


  Heads                                                  High Court               A
  Age                                                    12
  Multiplier                                             -
  Income (taken to be)                                   Rs.15,000/-
  Disability                                             100%
  Loss of income and permanent disability compensation   Rs. 2,70,000/-
  Pain, suffering loss of amenities                      Rs.3,00,000/-
  Attendant charges                                      Rs. 3,20,000/-           B
                                                         (Rs.2500 for 44 years)
  Future medical expenses                                Rs.2,00,000/-
  Loss of marria ge prospects                            Rs.3,00,000/-
  Medical                                                Rs.1,38,501/-
  Treatment
  Transportation details / special diet                  Rs.50,000/-
  Total                                                  Rs.25,78,501/-           C
        Aggrieved by the award the claimant is before this Court.
       5. The principles with regard to determination of just compensation
contemplated under the Act are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation
to the body which entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages
                                                                                  D
may vary according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant
in an accident. On account ofthe injuries, the claimant may suffer
consequential losses such as (i) loss of earning; (ii) expenses on treatment
which may include medical expenses, transportation, special diet,
attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or diminution to thepleasures of life by
loss of a particular part of the body, and (iv) loss of future earning            E
capacity. Damages can be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all
have to be assessed in Rupees and Paise.
       6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal
deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the
courts to do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages,         F
so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On
the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very
conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not be
assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant.
The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the
degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such               G
compensation is what is termed as just compensation.The compensation
or damages assessed forpersonal injuries should be substantial to
compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured
throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages.
                                                                                  H
630             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           7. There are numerous cases where the principles for grant of
      compensation have been enunciated. It would be relevant to quote
      pertinent observations from a few.
             8. In Phillips v. Western Railway Co.1, Field, J., while emphasizing
      that damages must be full and adequate, held thus:
B           “You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position,
            but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and
            you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which
            compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for
            it. You have, therefore, now to give himcompensation once and
C           for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the
            hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full
            fair compensation for that which he has suffered.” Besides, the
            Tribunals should always remember that the measures of damages
            in all these cases “should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor
            to say that he had amplyatoned for his misadventure”.
D
            9. In the case of Mediana2, Lord Halsbury held:
            “Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is one of
            extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay down any
            principle upon which you can give damages; nevertheless, it is
E           remitted to the jury, or those who stand in place of the jury, to
            consider what compensation in money shall begiven for what is a
            wrongful act. Take the most familiar and ordinary case: how is
            anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted?
            Nobody can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation
            establish what is the exact amount of money which would
F           represent such a thing as the pain andsuffering which a person
            has undergone by reason of an accident. In truth, I think it would
            be very arguable to say that a person would be entitled to no
            damages for such thing. What manly mind cares about pain and
            suffering that is past? But, nevertheless, the law recognizes that
G           as a topic upon which damages may be given.”
           10. The following observations of Lord Morris in his speech in H.
      West & Son Ltd.v. Shephard3, are very pertinent:
      1
        (1874) 4 QBD 406
      2
        [1900] AC 113
      3
H       1963 2 WLR 1359
      KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]                            631


          “Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be                 A
          procured to replace something else of the like nature which has
          been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame
          that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and courts
          can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving
          reasonable compensation. In the process there must bethe
                                                                                  B
          endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of
          approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and
          must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is eminently
          desirable that so far as possiblecomparable injuries should be
          compensated by comparable awards.”
       In the same case Lord Devlin observed that the proper approach             C
to the problem was to adopt a test as to what contemporary society
would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to
“hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that
he has done the fair thing”, which should be kept in mind by the court in
determining compensation in personal injury cases.                                D
       11. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the
case of Ward v. James4, laid down the following three basic principles
to be followed in such like cases:
          “Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is
          wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair       E
          compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically
          be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards
          in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity:There should be some
          measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be
          given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction   F
          in the community and much criticism of the administration of
          justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict
          with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be
          awarded in a particularcase, for by this means cases can be settled
          peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public
          good.”                                                                  G
       12. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises
great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss
into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guess
4
    (1965) 1 All ER 563                                                           H
632               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     work and conjecture. An assessment, as best ascan, in the circumstances,
      should be made.
             13. In McGregor’sTreatiseon Damages, 14th Edn., para 1157,
      referring to heads of damages inpersonal injury actions states:
               “The person physically injured may recover both for his pecuniary
B              losses andhis non-pecuniary losses. Of these the pecuniary losses
               themselves comprisetwo separate items, viz., the loss of earnings
               and other gains which theplaintiff would have made had he not
               been injured and the medical and otherexpenses to which he is
               put as a result of the injury, and the courts havesub-divided the
C              non-pecuniary losses into three categories, viz., pain andsuffering,
               loss of amenities of life and loss of expectation of life.”
            14. In M/s Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala
      Devi and others5, this Court held:
               “2….The determination of the quantum must be liberal, not
D              niggardly since thelaw values life and limb in a free country in
               generous scales.”
             15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.6, dealing
      with the different heads of compensation in injury cases thisCourt heldthus:
               “9. Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation
E
               payable to avictim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
               separately aspecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary
               damages are those whichthe victim has actually incurred and
               which are capable of being calculated interms of money; whereas
               non-pecuniary damages are those which areincapable of being
F              assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order toappreciate two
               concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurredby
               the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit
               up tothe date of trial; (iii) other material loss.So far as non-pecuniary
               damages are concerned, they may include:
G                  (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering
                   already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii)
                   damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life
                   whichmay include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury
      5
          1980 ACJ 55 (SC)
      6
H         (1995) 1 SCC 551
     KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]                               633


             theclaimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;(iii) damages          A
             for loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injurythe normal
             longevity of the person concerned is shortened;(iv)
             inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
             frustrationand mental stress in life.”
      16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others7, thisCourt laid                    B
down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for
personalinjuries.
         “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal
         injury casesare the following:
         Pecuniary damages (Special damages)                                        C

         (i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
         medicines,transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous
         expenditure.
         (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would            D
         havemade 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.
         (iii) Future medical expenses.
                                                                                    E
         Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
         (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of
         theinjuries.
         (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
                                                                                    F
         (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
        In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded
only underheads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury,
where thereis specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of
the claimant, thatcompensation will be granted under any of the heads
                                                                                    G
(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 ofmarriage) and loss of expectation of life.”


7
    (2011) 1 SCC 343                                                                H
634               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A            17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and
      Ors.8, this Court held as follows :
               “2...There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart
               or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
               computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of
B              realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor
               Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) stipulates that there
               should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a
               challenge for a court of law to determine “just compensation”
               which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously,
               should not be a pittance.”
C
            18. Applying the aforesaid principles, we now proceed to assess
      the compensation.
            Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
      transportation etc.
D            19. The High Court under the two heads of medical treatment
      and transport has awarded Rs.1,88,501/-. Out of this an amount of
      Rs.1,38,501/- is the actual expense incurred on the treatment of Kajal.
      One must remember that amongst people who are not Government
      employees and belong to the poorer strata of society, bills are not retained.
E     Some of the bills have been excluded by the courts below only on the
      ground that the name of the patient is not written on the bill. There is no
      dispute with regard to the long period of treatment and hospitalisation of
      this young girl. Immediately after the accident on 18.10.2007, she was
      admitted at a hospital in Karnal. From there, she was referred to the
      PGI, Chandigarh, where she remained admitted from 21.10.2007 till
F     12.11.2007 and, thereafter, she was again admitted in the hospital from
      12.11.2007 till 08.12.2007. She was in the hospital for almost 51 days,
      and both Dr. Sameer Aggarwal (PW-3) from the hospital at Karnal and
      Dr. Rajesh Chhabra (PW-4), from PGI, Chandigarh, have supported
      this. Limiting the amount only to the bills which have been paid in the
G     name of the claimant only, would not be reasonable. Therefore, the
      amount payable for actual medical expenses is increased from
      Rs.1,38,501/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. The amount awarded for transportation
      at Rs.50,000/- is reasonable. Therefore, under this head we award
      Rs.2,50,000/-.
      8
H         (2012) 12 SCC 274
   KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]                              635


       Loss of earnings                                                          A
       20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a
young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum
can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of
assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could
have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.15,000/- per                 B
annum. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking
notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum is not at all justified. The
appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages
payable to a skilled workman is Rs.4846/- per month. In our opinion this
would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming
a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs.6784.40/         C
- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18 it
works out to Rs.14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs.14,66,000/-
       21. Though the claimant would have been entitled to separate
attendant charges for the period during which she was hospitalised, we
are refraining from awarding the same because we are going to award              D
her attendant charges for life. At the same time, we are clearly of the
view that the tortfeasor cannot take benefit of the gratuitous service
rendered by the family members. When this small girl was taken to PGI,
Chandigarh, or was in her village, 2-3 family members must have
accompanied her. Even if we are not paying them the attendant charges            E
they must be paid for loss of their wages and the amount they would
have spent in hospital for food etc. These family members left their
work in the village to attend to this little girl in the hospital at Karnal or
Chandigarh. In the hospital the claimant would have had at least two
attendants, and taking the cost of each at Rs.500/- per day for 51 days,
we award her Rs.51,000/-.                                                        F

       Attendant charges
      22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court
@ Rs.2,500/- per month for 44 years, which works out to
Rs.13,20,000/-. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system.               G
Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When
compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into
consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has
always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be
followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss
                                                                                 H
636             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     of income but also for determining the attendant charges etc. This system
      was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
      Veluswami9. The multiplier systemfactors in the inflation rate, the rate
      of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant,
      and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the
      various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised
B
      as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice
      between the parties and thus results in award of ‘just compensation’
      within the meaning of the Act.
            23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the observation of
      Lord Reid in Taylor v. O’Connor10:
C
             “Damages to make good the loss of dependency over a period of
             years must be awarded as a lump sum and that sum is generally
             calculated by applying a multiplier to the amount of one year’s
             dependency. That is a perfectly good method in the ordinary case
             but it conceals the fact that there are two quiteseparate matters
D            involved, the present value of the series of future payments, and
             the discounting of that present value to allow for the fact that for
             one reason or another the person receiving the damages might
             never have enjoyed the whole of the benefit of the dependency. It
             is quite unnecessary in the ordinary case to deal with these matters
E            separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of experience which
             is an adequate guide to the selection of the multiplier and any
             expert evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case where the
             facts are special, I think, that these matters must have separate
             consideration if even rough justice is to be done and expert evidence
             may be valuable or even almost essential. The special factor in
F            thepresent case is the incidence of Income Tax and, it may
             be,surtax.”
             24. This Court hasreaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases
      like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati and Ors.11, U.P.
      State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and
G     Ors.12, Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande and Ors.13. This Court has
      also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for
      9
        AIR 1962 SC 1
      10
         1971 AC 115
      11
         1966 ACJ 57
      12
         (1996) 4 SCC 362
H     13
         (2017) 3 SCC 351
      KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]                       637


the multiplierto be applied in each case. Keeping the claimant’s age in      A
mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by
the High Court.
       25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic
amount taken for determining attendant charges is very much on the
lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely suffering     B
from incontinence meaning that she does not have control over her bodily
functions like passing urine and faeces. As she grows older, she will not
be able to handle her periods. She requires an attendant virtually 24
hours a day. She requires an attendant who though may not be medically
trained but must be capable of handling a child who is bed ridden. She
would require an attendant who would ensure that she does not suffer         C
from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a notification of the
State of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for skilled labourer
is Rs.4846/- per month. We, therefore, assess the cost of one attendant
at Rs.5,000/- and she will require two attendants which works out to
Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, and           D
using the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.21,60,000/- for attendant
charges for her entire life. This takes care of all the pecuniary damages.
         Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities
        26. Coming to the non-pecuniary damages under the head of pain,
suffering, loss of amenities, the High Court has awarded this girl only      E
Rs.3,00,000/-. In Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National
Insurance Company Limited and Ors.14, this Court while dealing with
the issue of award under this head held that it should be at least
Rs.6,00,000/-, if the disability is more than 90%. As far as the present
case is concerned, in addition to the 100% physical disability the young     F
girl is suffering from severe incontinence, she is suffering from severe
hysteria and above all she is left with a brain of a nine month old child.
This is a case where departure has to be made from the normal rule and
the pain and suffering suffered by this child is such that no amount of
compensation can compensate.
                                                                             G
     27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the
compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be
awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for
enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has
14
     2013 (10) SCALE 668                                                     H
638             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     been spent. Therefore, the courts or the tribunals assessing the
      compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is
      mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when
      awarding compensation. While awarding this amount we are not only
      taking the physical disability but also the mental disability and various
      other factors. This child will remain bed-ridden for life. Her mental age
B
      will be that of a nine month old child. Effectively, while her body grows,
      she will remain a small baby.We are dealing with a girl who will physically
      become a woman but will mentally remain a 9 month old child. This girl
      will miss out playing with her friends. She cannot communicate; she
      cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching
C     cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement
      of youth; the pleasures of a marital life;she cannot have children who
      she can love let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Her’s is
      a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and
      circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of
      the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child
D
      should be at least Rs.15,00,000/-.
            Loss of marriage prospects
            28. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of marriage
      prospects. We see no reason to interfere with this finding.
E           Future medical treatment
             29. The claimant has been awarded only Rs.2,00,000/- under this
      head. This amount is a pittance. Keeping in view the nature of her injuries
      and the fact that she is bed-ridden this child is bound to suffer from a lot
      of medical problems. True it is that there is no evidence in this regard but
F     there can hardly be such evidence. She may require special mattress
      which will have to be changed frequently. In future as this girl grows,
      she may face many other medical issues because of the injuries suffered
      in the accident. Keeping in view her young age and assuming she would
      live another 50-60 years, it would not be unjust to award her
G     Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses.
            How the compensation should be invested?
              30. The tribunal while awarding the compensation had stated that
      the amount payable to the share of Kajal would be kept in a Fixed Deposit
      till she attains the age of 18 years. The High Court while enhancing the
H
      KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]                             639


amount of compensation has directed that the enhanced amount be paid               A
to the appellant within 45 days. This is totally contrary to the guidelines
laid down by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.15,
wherein it has been held clearly that the amount payable to the minors
should not be normally released. The guidelines in this case were as
                                                                                   B
follows :
          “17….(i) The Claims Tribunal should, in the case of minors,
          invariably order the amount of compensation awarded to the minor
          be invested in long term fixed deposits at least till the date of the
          minor attaining majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian
          or next friend may, however, be allowed to be withdrawn;                 C

          (ii) In the case of illiterate claimants also the Claims Tribunal
          should follow the procedure set out in (i) above, but if lump sum
          payment is required for effecting purchases of any movable or
          immovable property such as, agricultural implements, rickshaw,
          etc., to earn a living, the Tribunal may consider such a request         D
          after making sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose
          and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money;
          (iii) In the case of semi-literate persons the Tribunal should
          ordinarily resort to the procedure set out at (i) above unless it is
          satisfied, for reasons to be stated in writing, that the whole or part   E
          of the amount is required for expanding and existing business or
          for purchasing some property as mentioned in (ii) above for earning
          his livelihood, in which case the Tribunal will ensure that the amount
          is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid;
          (iv) In the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to     F
          the procedure indicated in (i) above, subject to the relaxation set
          out in (ii) and (iii) above, if having regard to the age, fiscal
          background and strata of society to which the claimant belongs
          and such other considerations, the Tribunal in the larger interest
          of the claimant and with a view to ensuring the safety of the            G
          compensation awarded to him thinks it necessary to do order;
          (v) In the case of widows the Claims Tribunal should invariably
          follow the procedure set out in (i) above;

15
     (1994) 2 SCC 176                                                              H
640             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           (vi) In personal injury cases if further treatment is necessary the
            Claims Tribunal on being satisfied about the same, which shall be
            recorded in writing, permit withdrawal of such amount as is
            necessary for incurring the expenses for such treatment;
            (vii) In all cases in which investment in long term fixed deposits is
B           made it should be on condition that the Bank will not permit any
            loan or advance on the fixed deposit and interest on the amount
            invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian,
            as the case may be;
            (viii) In all cases Tribunal should grant to the claimants liberty to
C           apply for withdrawal in case of an emergency. To meet with such
            a contingency, if the amount awarded is substantial, the Claims
            Tribunal may invest it in more than one Fixed Deposit so that if
            need be one such F.D.R. can be liquidated….”
              These guidelines protect the rights of the minors, claimants who
D     are under some disability and also widows and illiterate person who may
      be deprived of the compensation paid to them in lump sum by
      unscrupulous elements. These victims may not be able to invest their
      monies properly and in such cases the MACT as well the High courts
      must ensure that investments are made in nationalised banks to get a
      high rate of interest. The interest in most cases is sufficient to cover the
E     monthly expenses. In special cases, for reasons to be given in writing,
      the MACT or the trial court may release such amount as is required.
      We reiterate these guidelines and direct that they should be followed by
      all the tribunals and High Courts to ensure that the money of the victims
      is not frittered away.
F           Interest
             31. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation by
      Rs.14,70,000/- and awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum but directed
      that the interest of 7.5% shall be paid only from the date of filing of the
      appeal. This is also incorrect. We are constrained to observe that the
G     High Court was not right in awarding interest on the enhanced amount
      only from the date of filing of the appeal. Section 171 of the Act reads as
      follows :
            “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.—Where
            any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under
H
   KAJAL v. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]                             641


      this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of      A
      compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and
      from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it
      may specify in this behalf.”
       Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the
petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again         B
be from the date of filing of the petition. It is only if the appeal is filed
after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the decision of the case
has been delayed on account of negligence of the claimant, in such
exceptional cases the interest may be awarded from a later date.
However, while doing so, the tribunals/High Courts must give reasons
why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of the petition.         C
Therefore, we direct that the entire amount of compensation including
the amount enhanced by us shall carry an interest of 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the
amount.
      Relief                                                                    D

       32. In view of the above, we award a sum of Rs.62,27,000/- to
the claimant under the following heads :
      S.No.                    Heads                      Amount

      (i)      Expenses relating to treatment,        Rs. 2,50,000/-            E
               hospitalisation and transportation
      (ii)     Loss of earnings (family members)      Rs. 51,000/-

      (iii)    Loss of future earnings                Rs.14,66,000/ -

      (iv)     Attendant charges                      Rs.21,60,000/ -           F
      (v)      Pain, suffering, loss of amenities     Rs.15,00,000/ -
      (vi)     Loss of Marriage prospects             Rs. 3,00,000/ -
      (vii )   Future medical treatment               Rs. 5,00,000/ -

                                                                                G
        This amount shall carry an interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of
filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount. Obviously,
the insurance company shall be entitled to adjust the amount already
paid. Further, the insurance company shall also beentitled to recover the
amount from the owner in terms of the award of the MACT, which has
not been challenged either before the High Court or us.                         H
642             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A            33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than
      the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in motor accident
      claim petitions, the Court must award just compensation and, in case,
      the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be
      awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.
B             34. The insurance company shall deposit the enhanced amount
      before the MACT in terms of the judgment after deducting the amount
      already paid by the insurance company within a period of 3 months from
      today. The MACT shall keep the entire amount in a fixed deposit in a
      nationalised bank, for a period of 5 years, giving highest rate of interest.
      The interest payable on this amount shall be released on quarterly basis
C     to the father of the child. This amount shall be spent for paying the
      attendants and for the care of the child alone. Even after 5 years since
      this child for all intents and purpose shall remain a person under a disability,
      the MACT shall keep renewing the amount on these terms. We, however,
      further direct that in case the parents or the guardian moves an application
D     for release of some amount to meet some special medical expenses,
      then MACT may consider release of the same.
             35. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as
      to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

E
      Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal disposed of.




F




G




H