PARMINDER SINGHversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

986                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     8 S.C.R. 986
                              REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A                            PARMINDER SINGH
                                        v.
                NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 5123 of 2019)
B                                JULY 01, 2019
               [INDU MALHOTRA AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
             Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Permannet disbaility due to
      accident – Driver of the offending vehicle not possessing valid driver
      license – Liability of the Insrance Company – Principle of ‘pay and
C
      recover’ – Appellant-driver was driving a car in which a Cabinet
      Minister in Punjab, was being driven from Ludhiana – Car rammed
      by a truck coming from the opposite direction at a very high speed
      and being driven in a rash and negligent manner – Accident
      occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of another
D     truck which was wrongly parked on the road– Minister succumbed
      to the injuries while the appellant suffered grievous injuries– In
      Claim Petition filed by the appellant against the owners and drivers
      of the two offending trucks, along with the insurer of the two
      offending trucks viz. the Respondent-Insurance Company, MACT
      awarded the appellant Rs.10,43,666/- along with interest @7.5%
E
      p.a. – High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.21,06,000/- –
      On appeal, held: MACT computed the compensation payable to the
      appellant on the basis of notional income of Rs.6,000/- p.m. on the
      ground that no evidence of his income was produced – Appellant
      has produced an affidavit by his employer as per which the appellant
F     was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident – Taking
      the income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- p.m., with future prospects
      @50% as awarded by the High Court, the total income of the
      Appellant would come to Rs.15,000/- p.m - Appellant was 23 years
      old at the time when the accident occurred – Applying the multiplier
      of 18, the loss of future earnings suffered by the appellant would
G
      work out to Rs. 15,000 X 12 X 18 =Rs. 32,40,000/- – High Court
      rightly assessed the functional disability of the appellant as 100%
      – Appellant is suffering from hemiplegia due to which the left side
      of his body is barely functioning – On account of the permanent

H
                                       986
 PARMINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                         987


disability suffered, the Appellant was deprived of getting married       A
and having a normal family life – His capacity to earn a living has
been completely shattered and he has a become fully dependant
person – Compensation awarded towards his medical expenses is
highly insufficient – Appellant has undergone 5 surgeries, including
a surgery for a severe head injury, and 3 throat surgeries –
                                                                         B
Rs.7,50,000/- awarded towards hospitalization and medical expenses
incurred in the past– Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded towards medical
expenses and attendant charges – View of the High Court that the
Respondent is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as
evidence has been produced from the office of the Regional
Transport Office to prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks   C
were driving with invalid driving licenses, affirmed – Respondent
entitled to recover the amount from the owners and drivers of the
two offending trucks.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD : 1.1 The MACT has computed the compensation                 D
payable to the Appellant on the basis of a notional income of
Rs. 6,000/- p.m. on the ground that no evidence of his income
was produced. The Appellant has however, produced an Affidavit
by his employer in Supreme Court. As per the said Affidavit, the
Appellant was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident.     E
On the basis of the Affidavit filed by the employer of the Appellant,
it is accepted that the income of the Appellant was Rs.10,000/-
p.m. at the time of the accident, for the purpose of computing the
compensation payable to him. Taking the income of the Appellant
as Rs. 10,000/- p.m., with Future Prospects @50% as awarded
by the High Court, the total income of the Appellant would come          F
to Rs. 15,000/- p.m. The Appellant was 23 years old at the time
when the accident occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18, the
loss of future earnings suffered by the Appellant would work out
to Rs. 15,000 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 32,40,000/-. The High Court has
rightly assessed the functional disability of the Appellant as 100%.     G
The Appellant is suffering from hemiplegia due to which the left
side of his body is barely functioning. On account of the permanent
disability suffered, the Appellant was deprived of getting married
and having a normal family life. His capacity to earn a living has

                                                                         H
988            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     been completely shattered for the rest of his life, and he has a
      become fully dependant person. [Paras 5, 5.1-5.5] [993-B-G]
             1.2 In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is
      not possible for the Appellant to get employed as a driver, or do
      any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural operations
B     whatsoever, for his sustenance. In such circumstances, the High
      Court has rightly assessed the Appellant’s functional disability at
      100% insofar as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The
      Appellant is, therefore, awarded Rs. 32,40,000/- towards loss of
      earning capacity. The compensation awarded to the Appellant
      towards his medical expenses is highly insufficient. The Appellant
C     has undergone 5 surgeries, including a surgery for a severe head
      injury, and 3 throat surgeries. The Appellant has not been awarded
      any amount whatsoever either by the MACT, or the High Court
      for the successive hospitalizations, surgeries and
      medical treatment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
D     case, it would be just and fair to award a lump sum amount of
      Rs. 7,50,000/- towards hospitalization and medical expenses
      incurred in the past by the Appellant. The Appellant was produced
      before the Court. He was in an extremely pitiable state. On
      account of the removal of the frontal bone of the skull, half of his
      head has caved in. Furthermore, a deep circular incision was made
E     in his throat, and his body was in an unstable condition,
      undergoing tremors. The Appellant is further suffering from
      hemiplegia, due to which the left side of his body is not functioning
      properly. Given the debilitated state of the Appellant, no amount
      of money can compensate him. He has been in this condition
F     since the age of 22 years when the accident took place, and will
      remain like this throughout his life. The Appellant has also been
      deprived of having a normal married life with a family, and would
      require medical assistance from time to time. Being completely
      dependant, he would require the help of an attendant throughout
      his life. In view of these uncontroverted facts, a lump sum amount
G     of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded to the Appellant towards medical
      expenses and attendant charges. [Paras 5.6-5.9] [996-D-H;
      997-A-D]
            1.3 The Appellant is entitled to the following amounts: (i)
      Rs. 32,40,000/- to be awarded towards loss of future earnings by
H
 PARMINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                       989


taking the income of the Appellant at Rs.10,000/- p.m., and            A
granting Future Prospects @50%; (ii) Rs. 7,50,000/- to be
awarded towards repeated hospitalizations and medical
expenses for undergoing 5 surgeries and medical treatment;
(iii) Rs. 10,00,000/- to be awarded towards future medical
expenses and attendant charges; (iv) Interest @ 9% awarded by
                                                                       B
the High Court from the date of the Claim Petition, till the date
of recovery to be maintained. On the issue of liability to pay the
compensation awarded, the view taken by the High Court that
the Respondent–Insurance Company is absolved of the liability
to bear the compensation, as evidence has been produced from
the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove that the          C
drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the basis of
invalid driving licenses, is affirmed. The owners and drivers of
the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of the
proceedings, including this Court. The Respondent – Insurance
Company is entitled to recover the amount from the owners and
                                                                       D
drivers of the two offending trucks. [Paras 6, 7] [997-E-H;
998-A-E]
      Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Company
      Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 ; K. Suresh v. New India
      Assurance Company Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : [2012]
      11 SCR 414 ; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Ors., (2011)            E
      1 SCC 343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179 ; Shamanna & Ors. v.
      The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.
      Ltd. & Ors. 2018 (9) SCC 650 [2018] 9 SCR 486
      – relied on.
                   Case Law Reference                                  F
(2011) 10 SCC 683         relied on           Para 5.5
[2012] 11 SCR 414         relied on           Para 5.5
[2010] 13 SCR 179         relied on           Para 5.5
[2018] 9 SCR 486          relied on           Para 7.1
                                                                       G
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5123
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 10473 of 2014
(O&M).
                                                                       H
990            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A           Bikash Chandra, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Varinder Kumar Sharma,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
            S. L. Gupta, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B           INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
            1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the claimant to
      challenge the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2017 passed in FAO No.
      10473 of 2014 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
            2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has
C     been filed, briefly stated, are as follows:
            2.1.   On 29.03.2009, the Appellant – driver, was driving a Hyundai
                   Elantra car in which Captain Kanwaljit Singh, a Cabinet
                   Minister in Punjab, was being driven from Ludhiana.
            2.2.   At about 5:15 p.m., when the car reached near Village
D
                   Khanpur, a truck bearing Registration No. HR-55-B-9491
                   was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which
                   came from the opposite direction at a very high speed, and
                   rammed into the car. The accident occurred due to the
                   contributory negligence of the driver of another truck bearing
E                  Registration No. HR-58-A-9791, which was wrongly parked
                   on the road.
            2.3.   As a result of the accident, Captain Kanwaljit Singh and
                   the Appellant – driver sustained grievous injuries. Captain
                   Kanwaljit Singh succumbed to his injuries on the same day
F                  while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The Appellant –
                   driver survived, but became permanently disabled.
            2.4.   The Appellant suffered from grievous injuries, including a
                   head injury with traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and
                   had to undergo a hemi-craniotomy i.e. removal of front bone
G                  of the skull. He further suffered fracture of both jaw bones,
                   and disfiguration of his face. Due to the severe head injury,
                   his left arm and leg were not functioning properly. The
                   Appellant had to undergo 5 surgeries for which he required
                   successive hospitalizations. He had to visit PGI, Chandigarh
                   on various dates for follow-up treatment as an outdoor
H                  patient.
PARMINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                             991
              [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

   2.5.   The Appellant was assessed by a Medical Board on                  A
          08.09.2010, and on examination it was found to be an
          operated case with hemiplegia i.e. weakness of one half of
          the body on the left side. The doctor opined that the Appellant
          shall not be able to work as a labourer, or do agricultural
          work, or work as a driver. His disability was assessed at
                                                                            B
          75%, which was permanent in nature.
   2.6.   The Appellant filed a Claim Petition before the MACT,
          Panchkula against the owners and drivers of the two
          offending trucks, along with the insurer of the two offending
          trucks viz. the Respondent – Insurance Company.
                                                                            C
          The Appellant contended that he was earning an income of
          Rs. 10,000/- p.m. as a driver prior to the accident.
   2.7.   The Respondent – Insurance Company pleaded that the
          drivers of the two offending vehicles were driving the trucks
          without valid driving licenses. The Insurance Company             D
          produced a Licensing Clerk from the RTO Office at
          Mathura, U.P. who deposed that the driving licenses had
          not been issued in the name of the drivers by their office.
          The licenses had been issued in the name of some other
          persons.
                                                                            E
   2.8.   The MACT, Panchkula vide Award dated 25.01.2013,
          allowed the Claim Petition, and awarded compensation of
          Rs. 10,43,666/- to the Appellant.
          The MACT proceeded on the basis of a notional income of
          Rs. 6,000/- p.m., which worked out to Rs. 72,000/- per            F
          annum, on the ground that the Appellant did not produce
          any evidence, nor examine any witness to prove his income.
          The loss of income due to functional disability was assessed
          at 75% which came to about Rs. 54,000/- per annum. By
          applying the multiplier of 18 to the income of the Appellant,
                                                                            G
          the compensation on account of loss of future earnings
          worked out to Rs. 9,72,000/-. The Appellant was awarded
          a total amount of Rs. 10,43,666/- along with Interest @7.5%
          p.a. for the injuries suffered by him.

                                                                            H
992            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A                  On the question of liability to pay compensation, the drivers
                   of both the offending trucks were found not to be holding
                   valid and effective driving licenses at the time of the
                   accident. As a result, the MACT held the owners and
                   drivers of the two offending trucks jointly and severally
                   liable to pay compensation to the Appellant. The Insurance
B
                   Company was absolved of the liability to pay compensation.
            2.9.   The Appellant filed FAO NO. 10473 of 2014 before the
                   Punjab & Haryana High Court for enhancement of the
                   compensation awarded by the MACT.
C                  The High Court vide Interim Order dated 11.07.2017,
                   directed the Appellant to be re-assessed by a Medical Board
                   at the Government Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. After
                   going through the nature of injuries suffered, and the
                   Disability Certificate, the High Court was of the view that
                   the disability suffered by the Appellant was 100% insofar
D                  as his earning capacity was concerned, and he had become
                   fully dependant on his family for survival.
                   The High Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order
                   dated 20.09.2017 partially allowed the FAO, and enhanced
                   the compensation awarded to Rs.21,06,000/-. The
E                  compensation was enhanced since the Appellant had
                   suffered from 100% disability with respect to his earning
                   capacity. The High Court granted Future Prospects @50%
                   to the income of the Appellant.
                   The Respondent – Insurance Company was directed to pay
F                  compensation to the Appellant in the first instance, and
                   recover the same from the owners and drivers of the two
                   offending trucks.
            3. The present Civil Appeal has been filed by the Appellant for
      enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 1,75,61,000/- since he is
G     permanently disabled, leading a miserable life, and requires a permanent
      attendant.
            4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant.
      The Appellant was produced before the Court at the time of hearing.
      We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent
H     – Insurance Company, and perused the pleadings on record.
    PARMINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                              993
                  [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

      The owners and drivers of the two offending trucks did not appear          A
throughout the proceedings.
      5. We find that the MACT has computed the compensation
payable to the Appellant on the basis of a notional income of
Rs. 6,000/- p.m. on the ground that no evidence of his income was
produced.                                                                        B
         5.1.   The Appellant has however, produced an Affidavit by his
                employer in this Court. As per the said Affidavit, the
                Appellant was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. at the time of the
                accident.
         5.2.   On the basis of the Affidavit filed by the employer of the       C
                Appellant, we accept that the income of the Appellant was
                Rs. 10,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident, for the purpose
                of computing the compensation payable to him.
         5.3.   Taking the income of the Appellant as Rs. 10,000/- p.m.,
                with Future Prospects @50% as awarded by the High                D
                Court, the total income of the Appellant would come to
                Rs. 15,000/- p.m.
         5.4.   The Appellant was 23 years old at the time when the
                accident occurred. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of
                future earnings suffered by the Appellant would work out         E
                to Rs. 15,000 X 12 X 18 = Rs. 32,40,000/-.
         5.5.   The High Court has rightly assessed the functional disability
                of the Appellant as 100%. The Appellant is suffering from
                hemiplegia due to which the left side of his body is barely
                functioning. On account of the permanent disability suffered,    F
                the Appellant was deprived of getting married and having a
                normal family life. His capacity to earn a living has been
                completely shattered for the rest of his life, and he has a
                become fully dependant person.
                    In Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance                   G
                  Company Ltd.,1 this Court held that:
                   “18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind
                   Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

1
    (2011) 10 SCC 683                                                            H
994               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A                        (supra) and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) must
                         be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts
                         in determining the quantum of compensation payable
                         to the victims of accident, who are disabled either
                         permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the
                         accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts
B
                         should always be made to award adequate
                         compensation not only for the physical injury and
                         treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his
                         inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities,
                         which he would have enjoyed but for the disability
C                        caused due to the accident.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
                          In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,2
                        this Court held that:
D                        “10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating
                         authority, while determining quantum of
                         compensation, has to keep in view the sufferings of
                         the injured person which would include his inability
                         to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal
                         amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
E                        injuries and his ability to earn as much as he used
                         to earn or could have earned. Hence, while
                         computing compensation the approach of the
                         tribunal or a court has to be broad based. Needless
                         to say, it would involve some guesswork as there
F                        cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise
                         formula to determine the quantum of compensation.
                         In determination of compensation the fundamental
                         criterion of ‘just compensation’ should be inhered.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
G                         In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Ors.,3 this Court
                        held that:
                         “Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
                         disability on the actual earning capacity involves
      2
          (2012) 12 SCC 274
H     3
          (2011) 1 SCC 343
PARMINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                     995
              [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

         three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what      A
         activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the
         permanent disability and what he could not do as a
         result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant
         for awarding compensation under the head of loss
         of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain
                                                                    B
         his avocation, profession and nature of work before
         the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
         out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from
         earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in
         spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could
         still effectively carry on the activities and functions,   C
         which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether
         he was prevented or restricted from discharging his
         previous activities and functions, but could carry on
         some other or lesser scale of activities and functions
         so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn
                                                                    D
         his livelihood.
         For example, if the left hand of a claimant is
         amputated, the permanent physical or functional
         disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the
         claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss
         of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent,      E
         if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the
         other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government
         service, the loss of his left hand may not result in
         loss of employment and he may still be continued as
         a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions;        F
         and in that event the loss of earning capacity will
         not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter,
         nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but
         far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award
         any compensation under the head of ‘loss of future
         earnings’, if the claimant continues in government         G
         service, though he may be awarded compensation
         under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence
         of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant
         may be continued in service, but may not found
         suitable for discharging the duties attached to the        H
996      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A               post or job which he was earlier holding, on account
                of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some
                other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments,
                in which case there should be a limited award under
                the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking
                note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted
B
                that when compensation is awarded by treating the
                loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even
                anything more than 50%), the need to award
                compensation separately under the head of loss of
                amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear
C               and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may
                have to be awarded under the head of loss of
                amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise
                there may be a duplication in the award of
                compensation. Be that as it may.”
D                                                    (emphasis supplied)
      5.6.   In the present case, it is an admitted position that it is not
             possible for the Appellant to get employed as a driver, or do
             any kind of manual labour, or engage in any agricultural
             operations whatsoever, for his sustenance.
E                In such circumstances, the High Court has rightly
             assessed the Appellant’s functional disability at 100% insofar
             as his loss of earning capacity is concerned. The Appellant
             is, therefore, awarded Rs. 32,40,000/- towards loss of
             earning capacity.
F     5.7.   We further find that the compensation awarded to the
             Appellant towards his medical expenses is highly insufficient.
             The Appellant has undergone 5 surgeries, including a surgery
             for a severe head injury, and 3 throat surgeries. The
             Appellant has not been awarded any amount whatsoever
G            either by the MACT, or the High Court for the successive
             hospitalizations, surgeries and medical treatment.
                 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it
             would be just and fair to award a lump sum amount of
             Rs. 7,50,000/- towards hospitalization and medical expenses
             incurred in the past by the Appellant.
H
 PARMINDER SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.                               997
               [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

      5.8.   The Appellant was produced before us. He was in an                A
             extremely pitiable state. On account of the removal of the
             frontal bone of the skull, half of his head has caved in.
             Furthermore, a deep circular incision was made in his throat,
             and his body was in an unstable condition, undergoing
             tremors. The Appellant is further suffering from hemiplegia,
                                                                               B
             due to which the left side of his body is not functioning
             properly.
      5.9.   Given the debilitated state of the Appellant, no amount of
             money can compensate him. He has been in this condition
             since the age of 22 years when the accident took place,
             and will remain like this throughout his life. The Appellant      C
             has also been deprived of having a normal married life with
             a family, and would require medical assistance from time
             to time. Being completely dependant, he would require the
             help of an attendant throughout his life.
                In view of these uncontroverted facts, we deem it fit          D
             and appropriate to award a lump sum amount of
             Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Appellant towards medical expenses
             and attendant charges.
       6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Appellant is entitled to
the following amounts:                                                         E

      i)     Rs. 32,40,000/- to be awarded towards loss of
             future earnings by taking the income of the Appellant at
             Rs. 10,000/- p.m., and granting Future Prospects @50%;
      ii)    Rs. 7,50,000/- to be awarded towards repeated                     F
             hospitalizations and medical expenses for undergoing 5
             surgeries and medical treatment;
      iii)   Rs. 10,00,000/- to be awarded towards future medical
             expenses and attendant charges;
      iv)    Interest @ 9% awarded by the High Court from the date of          G
             the Claim Petition, till the date of recovery to be maintained.
      7. On the issue of liability to pay the compensation awarded, we
affirm the view taken by the High Court that the Respondent – Insurance
Company is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as evidence
has been produced from the office of the Regional Transport Office to          H
998               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 8 S.C.R.


A     prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the
      basis of invalid driving licenses. It is also relevant to note that the owners
      and drivers of the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of
      the proceedings, including this Court.
               7.1.   This Court in Shamanna & Ors. v. The Divisional
B                     Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., held
                      that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess
                      a valid driving license, the principle of ‘pay and recover’
                      can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay
                      the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of
                      the offending vehicle.4
C
               7.2.   We deem it just and fair to direct the Respondent –
                      Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount of
                      compensation as indicated in Para. 6 above, to the Appellant
                      within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this judgment.
                      The Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to make
D                     out a Demand Draft in the name of the Appellant, which
                      can be used for his care for the rest of his life. The
                      Respondent – Insurance Company is entitled to recover
                      the amount from the owners and drivers of the two offending
                      trucks.
E           The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending
      Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
               Ordered accordingly.


F     Divya Pandey                                                    Appeal allowed.




G




      4
H         (2018) 9 SCC 650