Holding

The High Court’s reduction of pecuniary damages was erroneous; the Tribunal’s award of Rs.17,51,726 for medical expenses is affirmed and the appellant is entitled to substantially higher non‑pecuniary damages, bringing total compensation to Rs.79,66,000.

Summary

Rekha Jain, a 24‑year‑old film actress, was injured in a road accident caused by a negligent truck driver, sustaining grievous facial injuries and 30% permanent physical disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded her total compensation of Rs.23,51,726, including Rs.17,51,726 as pecuniary damages for medical expenses and a modest sum for non‑pecuniary losses. The Orissa High Court reduced the pecuniary award to Rs.7,77,000, holding that the medical bills were not properly proved, and declined to enhance the non‑pecuniary awards. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred: the medical bills were duly proved, the functional disability of a film actress should be treated as 100% despite only 30% physical disability, and the appellant was entitled to substantial enhancement of non‑pecuniary damages for loss of future earnings, loss of amenities and pain‑suffering. The Court affirmed the MACT’s pecuniary award and increased the non‑pecuniary awards, fixing total compensation at Rs.79,66,000 with interest. The insurer was directed to deposit the amount as ordered.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the pecuniary damages awarded for medical expenses from Rs.17,51,726 to Rs.7,77,000.
Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation under the various heads of non‑pecuniary damages (future loss of earnings, loss of amenities, pain and suffering).
Whether a 30% physical disability can be treated as 100% functional disability for a film actress.
Whether the insurer could rely on the alleged lack of documentary evidence to defeat the claim.
Whether the insurer’s defences are limited to those enumerated in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 149(2), s. 166, s. 170(b)

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Actpersonal injurypecuniary damagesnon‑pecuniary damagesfunctional disabilityfilm actressloss of earningspain and sufferinginsurance claim

Judgment

[2013) 13 S.C.R. 1113

:. ;. REKHA JAIN A
'v.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5370-5372 of 201~)
AUGUST 1, 2013
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]

, Motor VeMcles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Compensation -
Grant of - Pecuniary damages towards medical expenses -
Television
.
and film actress met with accident and Isustained c
grievous injuries on her face and other parts of the body which
was assessed at 30% permanent disability - Tribunal
awarded Rs.17,51, 7261- towards pecuniary damages namely,
medical charges, medicine expenses and other expenses -
Amount reduced by High Court to Rs. 7, 77,0001- - D
Justification ..., Held: Notjustified - Findings recorde(i by High
CourtJor reduction of pecuniary damages from Rs.17,51, 7261
·- to Rs. 7, 77, 0001- was wholly erroneous in law as the same
was contrary to the facts pleaded and proved by producing
evidence on record - Tribunal had awarded Rs. 17, 15, 7261- E
towards the medical expenses based on the legal evidence
and, therefore compensation awarded by the Tribunal was
affirmed.
~
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Compensation -
Grant of - Physical disability and functional disability - F
Difference between - Held: A man is not compensated for
physical injury; he is compensated for the loss which he
suffers as a result of that injury - Functional disability is a
forceful alteration of career option on account of physical and
·~
mental injuries due to an accident - Even though a claimant G
-does not suffer from 100% physical permanent disability, he
suffers from 100% functional disability if he loses the capacity
to pursue his work as a result of the aocident.

1113 H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Compensation - ""' :
Grant of - Pecuniary damages - Television and film actress
met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries on her
face and other parts of the body which was assessed at 30%
permanent disability - Held: For a film actress, physical
B appearance particularly the facial features are very important
. to acrin films and T. V. serials - On account of the accident,
the face of appellant was disfigured, she put on weight and
became fat and· therefore was unable to perform the role as
an actress in films in future - Though as per the District
c Medical Board, the permanent disability of appellant was
30%, having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by her,
the permanent disability of appellant should be treated as
100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films
and in T. V. serials in future. at all - This relevant aspect of
the matter was conveniently omitted to be considered both by
0
the Tribunal as well as by the High Court while determining
compensation under various heads ·of non-pec.uniary
damages -On facts, annual income of appellant assessed at
Rs.5,00,0001 - By adopting multiplier of 17, amount of
Rs. 42, 50, 0001- awarded under the head of non-pecuniary
E damages - Rs.10,00,0001- awarded for loss of amenities,
pleasure of life and inability to attend social functions in future
- Further Rs. 10, 00, 0001- awarded towards pain and suffering
in view of the ordeal undergone by appellant. -1
F The appellant, a 24 year old model and actress, while
driving a car met with an accident on account of rash and
negligent driving by a truck driver. She sustained
grievous injuries on her face and other parts of the body
which was assessed at 30% permanent disability. The
G appellant went through a number of surgeries on 1'-·
acco·unt of the accident.

The Tribunal awarded to appellant a total
compensation of Rs.23,51,7261- including Rs.17,51,726/-
towards pecuniary damages namely, medical charges,
H
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1115

medicine expenses and other expenses; and Rs.6,000/- A
towards non-pecuniary damages. The High Court
reduced the pecuniary damages awarded towards
medical expenses incurred by the appellant from
Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/-, and by awarding a further
amount of Rs.6,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages, B
awarded a total compensation of about Rs.14,000/-.

In the instant appeals, the questions which arose for
consideration were: 1) whether the High Court was
justified ·in reducing the pecuniary damages awarded C
towards medical expenses incurred by the appellant from·
Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- and 2) whether the
appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation under
the different heads of non-pecuniary damages.

Allowing the appeals, the Court D

HELD:1. The High Court gravely erred both on facts
and in law in interfering with the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal in reducing the pecuniary damages
awarded towards medical expenses incurred by the
E
appellant from Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- solely on the
ground that there was no documentary evidence in
relation to the amount spent towards medical expenses
which was awarded by the Tribunal. This assumption by
the High Court is factually not correct. As could be seen
from the record, there are large number of medical bills
F
and vouchers produced by the appellant for having spent
the money towards the surgeries conducted upon her
and payment made to the various Hospitals and Nursing
y Homes namely; V.S.S. Medical Hospital, Burla, Kalinga
Hospital, Bhubaneshwar, Nursing Home, Cuttack along G
with purchase of ll)edicines which run to Rs.17 ,51,726/.:
The above said factual aspects are stated in unequivocal
terms in her statement of evidence, and she has also
· referred to the documents such as bills, receipts and
vouchers obtained by her from various medical stores on H
>-

1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R. •

A the basis of the prescriptions of the doctors who have
treated her. Some of the documents were marked in the
evidence of PW-3 - the appellant herein and she had
spoken about the expenses incurred towards her
treatment and pu·rchase of medicines. Nonetheless, the
B Tribunal awarded compensation under pecuniary
damages having regard to the clinching evidence on
record that the surgeries were conducted and treatment
was taken by the appellant in various hospitals and
Nursing Homes for a period of four years. The same has
c been arbitrarily and unreasonably, without assigning any
cogent and valid reason, interfered with by the High
Court and it has erroneously modified the judgment by
reducing the amount from Rs. 17,51,726/- to Rs. 7,77,000/
-. This has been very lightly interfered with by the High
Court Judge without application of mind and
0
consideration of legal evidence on record particularly in
the absence of rebuttal evidence and further, the
Insurance Company was unable to show that the
documents produced by the appellant in her evidence are
fabricated documents, which have been produced with
E deliberate intention to prefer a false claim in this regard
as contended on behalf of the Insurance Company. The
findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned
judgment for reduction of pecuniary damages from
Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- is wholly erroneous in law
F as the same is contrary to the facts pleaded and proveQ •
by producing evidence on record. Therefore, the same
requires to be interfered with by this Court in these
appeals. [Para 13] [1134-D-H; 1135-B-C, F-H; 1136-A-C]

G 2.1. The appellant is substantially entitled to
enhancement of compensation under various heads of
non-pecuniary damages having regard to the concurrent
findings recorded on this aspect of the matter by the High
Court. Both the Tribunal and the High Court accepted the
H nature of injuries sustained by her and the percentage of
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1117

permanent partial disablement suffered by her due to the A
Motor Vehicle Accident as per the Disability Certificate
No.943 dated 24.2.2006 issued by the Chief Medical
Officer of the District Medical Board of Sambalpur.
Justice, equity and good conscience must be the primary,
relevant and important aspects for awarding just and B
reasonable compensation to an unfortunate victim, the
appellant who sustained grievous injuries to her body
and whose future prospects are completely doomed.
Further, the Tribunal and courts while awarding
compensation for bodily injuries, must realise that the c
possession of one's own body is the first and most
valuable of all human rights and that all other
possessions and ownership are the extensions of the
basic right. Bodily injuries should be equated with the
deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages and the
0
amount of damages varies in accordance with the gravity
of injuries. [Para 14] [1136-E-G; 1137-A-C]

2.2. In granting compensation for personal injury, the
injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering;
(2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened expectation of life, E
if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or
in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment and
other special damages. In personal injury cases the two
main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss.
[Para 25] [1143-F-G] F

RO. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited
and Ors. 1995 (1) sec 551: 1995 (1) SCR 75 - referred to.

K. Narasimha Murthy vs. The Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and Anr. ILR 2004 Kar. 2471; G
Basavaraj v. Shekar ILR 1987 Kar. 1399; R. Venkatesh v. P.
Saravanan and Ors. 2001 (1) Kar. L.J. 411 and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicol/etta Rohtagi and Ors. (2002) 7
SCC 456: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 456 - referred to.
H
r
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A Admiralty Comrs v. S.S. Valeria (1922) 2 A.C. 242;
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Company 1880 5 App. Cas. ""'
25; Ward v. James 1966 1 Q.B. 273; Parry v. Cleaver (1970]
1 AC 1; Rushton v. National Coal Board 1953 1 QB 495; Fair
v. London and North Western Railway Company 21 L.T.
B (N.S.) 326 (1869); Fowler v. Grace (1970) 114 Sol. Jo.193;
In re the Mediana (1900] AC 113; Baker v. Willoughby (1969)
3 All ER 1528 - referred to.
McGregor on Damages (14th Edition) - referred to.
y
3.1. Both the Tribunal as well as the High Court
c gravely erred both on facts and in law in not evaluating
the legal evidence on record to award just and
reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant
keeping in view the fact that the appellant was a good
actress, model and has acted in many films, albums, T.V.
D serials etc. The Tribunal did not apply the legal principles
1-
laid down by this Court to award just and reasonable
l ,.
compensation by following various guiding factors and
\
legal principles under the heading of future loss of
earnings. It has also not awarded compensation under
E the following heads namely (1) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and sufff~ring already undergone by
the appellant or she is likely to undergo in future, (2)
damages for loss of amenities of life on account of injury
-"(
due to which the appellant is unable to a~t in the films
F and (3) damages for the loss of expectations of life,
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in ~ife. (Para 31] (1147-E, G-
H; 1148-A-B]
3.2. Since under the head of non pecuniary damages, "('
G the Tribunal did not award reasonable compensation, the
appellant rightly approached the High Court. Dismissal
of the appeal without assigning any reason whatsoever
is arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the appellant is
justified in challenging the said order in these appeals.
H [Para 32] (1148-C, E-F]
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1119

4. ft is also in the evidence of the appellant that she A
was an actress who acted iri T.V. serials and also acted
iin the motion picture. Further, she has stated in her .
1
evidence that at the time of accident she had- completed
:her graduation in Commerce from G.M. College,
Sambalpur and she was pursuing her studies for her a
post graduate degree in that College. Prior to her
admission to P.G. Class, sh·e had done P.G. Diploma
'(
course in Hotel Management from the Institute of Hotel
Management and Catering Technology, Bhubaneswar.
She has further stated that while pursuing her studies c
she. was performing in the films. She has further stated
that after the accident, her physical fitness, physical
appearance and her zeal to perform in. films have been
reduced to zero. The vital statistics required of her for
modeling has also become disproportionate after the D
~ accident. She has categorically stated that she became
permanently handicapped and disabled. She has· also
stated that prior to the accident she was lean and thin.
But due to continued treatment after accident, she gained
4 to 5 k.gs. The aforesaid positive qnd substantive legal .
evidence remained unshaken in the cross examination of E
the appellant - PW-3. [Para 33 and 34] [1148"G; 1149-E-
H; 1150-A]
y-
5. The case pleaded by the appellant that she has
been acting in films, T.V. serials, modeling and F
participating in the award competition is established by
pleadings and evidence on record. There is no rebuttal
evidence adduced in this regard by either the insured or
y
by the Insurance Company. The finding of fact recorded
by the Tribunal stating that she has been acting as an G
actress has been re-affirmed by the High Court by
affirming the award of compensation under the various
heads of non-pecuniary damages. Despite the cogent
and substantive evidence adduced on record by the
appellant before the Tribunal, neither·has it awarded just
. . H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A and reasonable compensation nor the High Court has
enhanced the same in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction by re-appreciating the pleadings and
evidence on record. [Para 36 and 37] [1150-E-H]

6. For a film actress, the physical appearance
8
particularly the facial features are very important to act
in the films and in T.V. serials. It is in the evidence of the
appellant that on account of the accident her face was
disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat
and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an
C actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of
vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry
on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the
disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress
either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any
D other role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also ..f
as a model. It is in the evidence of the appellant that as
per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her
permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature
of injuries, the appellant's permanent disability should be
E treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot
act in the films and in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore,
on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered
functional disability. Even though the claimant does not
suffer from 100% physical permanent disability, he
F suffers from 100% functional disability if he loses the
capacity to pursue his work as a result of the accident.
[Para 38] [1151-A-F]

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed
G 2007 (2) SCC 349: 2007 (2) SCR 117; Pa/raj v. Norlh East
Karnataka Road Transporl Corpn. 2010 (10) SCC 347: 2010
(11) SCR 89 and Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v.
Prasanath S. Dhananka 2009 (6) SCC 1: 2009 (9) SCR 313
- referred to.
H 7. A man is not compensated for, the physical injury;
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1121

)"· he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a A
result c>f that injury. Therefore, the functional disability is
a forceful alteration of career option of the appellant who
has already undergone physical and mental injuries
becaw;;e of the accident. It would amount to adding
distress to injury if one is forced to work with difficulty B
to earri his/her livelihood so as to reduce the burden of
the wrcmgdoer in terms of compensation. [Para 41] [1153-
D-F]
-.
8. Having regard to the nature of grievous· injuries
and hE!r disfigured face and tha~ she was acting as an c
actress in the films, T.V. serials, etc. her functional
disabloment is 100%. This relevant aspect of the matter
has been conveniently omitted to be considered both by
the Tribunal as well as by the High Court while
determining compensation under various heads of non- D
~
pecuniary damages. For the foregoing reasons, under the
different heads of non-pecuniary damages she is entitled
to higher compensation in her appeal. It is in her
evidence that her income depends upon the project. She
got 30,000/- for her first film "Maa Pari Kiye Haba" and E
Rs.75,000/- for Malayalam film 'Paith Digem Alam'. For her
performance in a serial, she used to get within Rs.7000/-
to 1O,CIOO/-. She had received Rs.50,000/- for winning the
~ "Ponds Women of Tomorrow" Contest. The said
evidence remains unchallenged in the cross examination. F
Havin~1 regard to her age and 'qualification and that she
was acting in various Oriya and Malayalam films, T.V.
serial!; and that she was in the beginning stage of her
acting career and having regard to the fact that she has
y acted in various films, she would have definitely had a G
very good chance for acting in future if she had not
suffered the grievous injuries, facial disfigurement and
other injuries on account of the accident. She has also
stated in her evidence that she is an assessee for income
tax. Having regard to the aforesaid legal evidence .on H
. -
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A record and in the absence of documentary evidence to "
show her probable annual income, it would be prop~r for
this Court to take her probable annual income as
Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of computation of her future
loss of earning. Though the disability certificate speaks
B of her disability at 30% on account of disfigurement of
the face and other injuries to her body, her physical
fitness is completely changed, she has put on weight 4
- to 5 kgs., she is not fit to act and no film producer will
offer her roles in their films to act as an actress. Having
C regard to the nature of the voc~tion, it is clear that she is
suffering from 100% functional disability. In the light of
the facts of this case and keeping in view the evidence
on record that she is a film actress ;md also taking into
consideration that in the film world of this country the
heroine certainly get substantial sum for acting in films,
0
T.V. serials, modeling, it would be just and proper to take ~
50% of her annual income for the purpose of computation
of her future loss of income keeping in view that
throughout her fife she may not be in a position to act in
the films, albums and modeling. Her annual income is
E assessed at Rs.5,00,000/-, 50% of which is Rs.2,50,000/-
per annum which is multiplied by 17 as the proper
multiplier considering her age at the time of accident by
applying the legal principle laid down by this Court in
Sar/a Verma case, which amounts to Rs.42,S0,000/-,
F whereas under the aforesaid head, the Tribunal had
awarded only Rs.2,00,000/-. (Para 42) (1153-F-H; 1154-A-
H; 1155-A-C]

Sar/a Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. and Anr.
G 2009 (6) SCC 121: 2009 (5) SCR 1098 - referred to.

9. The Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of amenities, pleasure of life and
inability to attend· social functions in future, which is
inadequate, therefore, it should be enhanced to
H
REKHAJAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANC~ CO. LTD. 1123

Rs.10,00,000/-. Towards the pain and suffering, the A
Tribunal awarded Rs;1,00,000/-. It should be proper to
award another Rs.9,00,000/- as the appellant has
undergone ordeal for the period of 4 years continuously
takin1:1 treatment in Odisha and Kerala States a·nd the
damc:1ges for mental and physical shock, pain and B
suffering, disfigurement of the face and other bodily
injuries she already suffered continuously or likely to
suffer. The Tribunal awarded Rs.17,15,726/- towards the
medical expenses based on the. legal evidence and,
therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is C
affirmed. Thus, total compensation amounting to
Rs.79,65,726/- - rounded off to Rs. 79,66,000/-along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded from the
date of application till the date of deposit of the amount.
The aforesaid enhancement of compensation under
0
diffe1rent heads would be just and reasonable
compensation in this case. [Paras 43 to 46] [1155•0-H;
1156-A]
Case Law Reference:
ILR 2004 Kar. 2471 referred to Para 14 E
1995 (1) SCR 75 referred to Para 15
('1922) 2 A.C. 242 referred to Para 16
1880 5 App. Cas. 25 referred to
•
Para 17
F
1966 1 Q.B. 273 referred to Para 19
ILR 1987 Kar. 1399 referred to Para 20
[1970] 1 AC 1 referred to Para 21
21 L.T. (N.S.) 326 (1869) referred to Para 22 G
I

1953 1 QB 495 referred to Para 22
('1970) 114 Sol. Jo.193 referred to Para 23
['1900) AC 113 referred to Para 24
H
1124 · SUPREME COURT REPORT~ [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 2001(1.) Kar. L.J. 411 referred to Para 27 "'
(1969) 3 All ER 1528 referred to Para 28
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 456 referred to Para 30
2007 (2) SCR 117 referred to Para 38.
B
2010 (11) SCR 89 referred to Para 39
2009 (9) SCR 313 referred to Para 40
2009 (5) SCR 1098 referred to Para 42 ¥
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
c
5370-5372 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.022011 of the High
Court of Orissa, Cuttack in M.A.C.A. No. 580 of 2007 and
Order dated 10.03.2011 in Misc .. Case No. 386 of 2011 in
D M.A.C.A. No. 580 of 2007 and final Judgment and Order dated
24.02.2011 in M.A.C.A. No. 846 of 2007.
Sukumar Pattjoshi, S.K. Dubey, Sibo Shankar Mishra for
the Appellant.
E S.L. Gupta, Ram Ashray, Shyam Sunder Gupta for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave is granted by this Court
F vide order dated 02.07.2013 after condoning the delay in filing
the special leave petitions.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment,
awfird and orders dated 24.2.2011 passed in MACA No. 580
of 2007, MACA No. 846 of 2007 and dated 10/03/2011 in MC
G No. 386 of 2011 in MACA No. 580 of 2007 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack allowing the appeal of the Insurance
Company and dismissing the appeal of the appellant by which
she has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment, award
and order and has further prayed for enhancement of
H
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1125
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
compe,nsation by award of just and reasonable compensation A
allowing the appeals urging various facts and legal contentions,

3. The necessary brief facts for the purpose of
appreciating the rival factual and legal contentions urged in
these appeals are stated as under:
B
On 17.08.2001 the appellant was driving a Maruti Car
bearing Regn. No. OR 15 D-9005 by which she was going
a.long with her mother Grace Jain from Sambalpur towards
Cuttack when the accident occurred. A truck bearing Regn. No.
MP 23 D-0096 coming from the opposite direction from c
Cuttack towards Sambalpur hit the car which resulted in the
instantaneous death of the mother of the appellant and the
appellant received grievous injuries to her body. She was
admitted to the VSS Medical College Hospital, Burla,
Sambalpur and subsequently, she had undergone treatment at D
I ~ different Nursing Homes both at Cuttack and in the State of
Kera la.

4. On account of the accident, grievous injuries were
sustained by the appellant on the right side of her face which
left permanent scars and caused disfiguration of her face and E
other parts of her body including her leg. She underwent a
number of surgeries due to grievous injuries sustained by her.
y She underwent treatment from 18.08.2001 to 10.10.2001 at
Kalinga Hospital and later on, in different Nursing Homes/
hospitals. The District Medical Board issued a certificate dated F
24.02.20013 to the appellant certifying that she is suffering from
30% permanent disability. The appellant has approached the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') at
Sambalpur by filing a claim petition No. 119 of 2002 with a
' ) request to award just and reasonable compensation. G

5. The respondents herein, the owner of the vehicle and
the insurer were impleaded and after service of summons on
them they filed their statement of objections disputing the claim
of the appellant. The owner of the vehicle has ad1¥1itted the H
-
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S,C.R.

A accident and has also stated that the motor vehicle involved in
the accid'3nt is covered by the insurance policy which was valid
up to 30.11.2001. He has further categorically stated that the
driver who drove that truck had a valid licence. The respondent
Insurance Company in its statement of objections denied its
8 liability on the ground that the accident did not take place on
account of rash and negligent driving of the driver who drove
the offending vehicle, but was due to a motor cyclist who came
in front of the truck on account of which the accidenMook place.
It had further denied the various claims of the appellant.

C 6. The case went for trial and on behalf of the appellant,
three witnesses were examined including the appellant and
documents were produced in justification of her claim. Both the
owner and the Insurance Company have not adduced evidence
in justification of their· defence taken in their statement of
D objections. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, on proper
appraisal of evidence on record, has answered the contentious
issues in favour of the appellant holding that the accident took
place on account of rash and negligent driving of the' truck by
its driver. It is further held by the Tribunal that the appellant is
E entitled to compensation and awarded Rs. 23,51, 726/- both
under the heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application i.e. 30.03.2002 till the date of payment. Aggrieved
by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, both the Insurance
F Company and the appellant filed appeals before the High Court
of Orissa in Appeal No. 580 and MACA 846 of 2007
respectively. The appeal-of the Insurance Company was
allowed by reducing the compensation from 23,51,726/- to Rs.
14,00,000/- after finding fault with the Tribunal in awarding a
G sum of Rs. 17,51,726/- towards pecuniary damages by
accepting the vouchers, hospital bills, receipts which have not
been marked as exhibits in evidence on behalf of the appellant.
Though, the compensation awarded towards the pecuniary loss
for the medical expenses, treatment charges and the purchase
of medicines, supported by the documentary evidence, that is,
H
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE. CO. LTD. 1127 .
[V GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
. ,..._ bills, receipts, cash memos and vouchers, as per Exhs. 26-28 A
series worth Rs. 2,07,713/- and other documents cash memos,
hospital bills and receipts etc. were marked as exhibits in the
evidence, some of the hospital bills and receipts worth Rs.
5,72,000/-, though available on record, have not been marked
as evidence to show that the appellant had also incurred B
medical expenses amounting to Rs.5,72,000/-. The Tribunal
has taken into account all those documents on record as
evidence by marking them as exhibits. However, only a sum of
Rs.7,77,000/- in total was awarded by the High Court towards
pecuniary damages and Rs.6,00,000/- towards non pecuniary c
damages under different heads which is rounded off in all at
Rs.14,00,000/- by modifying the judgment of the Tribunal. The
Misc case No. 386 of 2011 filed by the appellant was
considered and the High Court modified its earlier order vide
its order dated 10.3.2011 directing the Insurance Company to
D
~ deposit the amount with interest with the Registry of the High
Court and out of the said amount, it has directed the. Registry
to keep 70% in the fixed deposit in the name of the appellant
in any of the Nationalized Bank for a period of five years and·
the balance amount be disbursed to the appellant on proper
E
identification. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed in
view of the fact that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company,
MACA No. 580 of 2007 was allowed and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal was reduced. The same judgment is
questioned by the appellant in these civil appeals seeking for
enhancement of compensation urging various grounds. F

7. The grounds urged in these appeals are that the High
court has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the finding
of fact recorded by the Tribunal with regard to award of
'" '; pecuniary damages towards medical expenses without proper G
appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record and has-
considerably reduced the amount under the heading of
pecuniary damages from Rs.17,5,1,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/-. The
correctness of the said impugned judgmerrtand order is
questioned before this Court contendingJ_tlaUhe same is not H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, -"'.
the appellant prayed for setting aside the same and award just
and-reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant both
under the heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages by
apply'ing the law laid down by this Court.
B
8. Further, it is contended by Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi,
learned Senior Counselfor the appellant that the High Court has
erroneously interfered with the impugned judgment and award
of the Tribunal which is contrary to legal evidence on record and
C various judgments of this Court with regard to the claim and he
also contended that the High Court has not awarded just and
reasonable compensation to mitigate the hardship and restore
the claimant's position financially as she was in before the
accident.

D 9. Further, the learned Senior Counsel. submitted that the
High Court was not justified in not enhancing the non pecuniary
compensation though sufficient evidence was brought on record
~ I
by the appellant before the MACT to show that she was a
celebrity in the sphere of modeling and acting who had a bright
E future ahead of her which was doomed by the accident which
resulted in number of surgeries conducted on her body. The
opportunity for the appellant to act in the movies and T.V. serials
is lost by her on account of the grievous injuries sustained by
her. The Tribunal has referred the same in its judgment while -'{
F awarding compensation under different headings of non-
pecuniary damages, namely, suffering and future loss of
earnings but it did not take into consideration the permanent
partial disablement suffered by the appellant which was
assessed at 30% and disfigurement of her face due to accident
G and the fact that she is a celebrity acting in movies and TV ~ •
serials and also in the field of modeling. Due to disfigurement
of her face, she will be losing her future income as she will not
get opportunities to act-in the films and T.V. serials. Therefore,
the learned Senior Counsel submits that both the Tribunal and
H the High Co~rt were not justified in not awarding the just and
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1129
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
~~ reasonable compensation under the heading of future incom~. A
They have awarded only a meager amount of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards the loss of income during the period of medical
treatment though she was unable to earn nearly for a period of
four years as she was undergoing treatment. Also, the Tribunal
did not award any amount for loss of future income but has B
awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the pain and suffering
without taking into consideration the fact that she has
undergone treatment in various Nursing Homes/Hospitals for
'1 plastic surgery and other surgeries and physiotherapy. A paltry
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded for loss of income during
the period of medical treatment of the appellant. A sum of Rs.
c
2,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of amenities and
pleasure of life. Therefore, she has filed the appeals requesting
this Court to award just and reasonable compensation by
appreciating the legal evidence on record.
D
10. It is further urged that the High Court has failed to take
into consideration the fact that the injured appellant is a single
lady left in her family who was compelled to engage an
attendant during the period of her treatment while she was in a
state of immobility. It is further contended by the learned Senior E
Counsel that the learned members of the Tribunal and the High
Court have erred in passing impugned judgment and order
y
which are not in accordance with the cardinal principles laid
down by this Court in various judgments in matters of Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims and they also did net consider the F
various relevant aspects such as the grievous injuries suffered
by the appellant which has resulted in disfigurement of her face,
who has lost her future career to act in the films and T.V. serials
and also through advertisements as well as modeling. The
, ~ Tribunal and High Court have erred in not taking into G
consideration the above said relevant aspects of the case to
award pecuniary damages and adequate compensation under
the heading of non-pecuniary damages without proper
appreciation of pleadings and the legal evidence on record
particularly when both the owner of the truck and the Insurance
H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 s.c.R.1

A Company have not adduced rebuttal evidence. The Insurance
Company has not obtained the permission as required under
Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act to avail the defence
of the insured and contest in the proceeding on the defence of
the insured/ owner. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal and
B the High Court in the impugned judgment and order and not
awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the
appellant is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law.
Therefore, it is contended by Mr. Pattjoshi, the learned Senior
Counsel that the appellant is entitled to just and reasonable
compensation. The learned Senior Counsel placed strong
C reliance on the evidence on record and has contended that the
appellant was a good actress and model and worked in many
films, albums, T.V. serials etc. and she had also won many
awards like "Ponds Woman of Tomorrow" for the year 1999,
best actress in feature film "Maa Pari Kiye Haba" etc. The said
D legal evidence was neither challenged nor was any rebuttal <
evidence adduced on behalf of either the owner of the truck.or
the Insurance Company to show that the appellant is not entitled
to just and reasonable compensation. However, the High Court
should have taken into consideration all the relevant facts and
E evidence on record as the Tribunal has failed to exercise its
power and discharge its statutory duty to award just and
reasonable compensation in her favour. The learned Judge of
the High Court should have considered that the appellant is a
film actress and her beauty is an essential requirement for
F acting in films, T.V. Serials and modeling. When her beauty is
lost on account of disfigurement of her face, she has lost
everything which means that there is hundred percent functional
disability in her life. But, both the Tribunal and the High Court
did not even consider 30% permanent partial disableml'!nt
G suffered by the appellant at the time of passing the award to
determine the compensation under various heads of non-
pecuniary damages. Further, it is contended by the learned .
Senior Counsel that the loss of future income of the appellant
is on account of the fact that she had suffered grievous injuries
H in the accident and therefore her life has become miserable.
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1131.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
In future as well, she will not be able to act in films and T.V. A
serials. The High Court as well as the Tribunal have failed to
consider the evidence adduced by the injured appellant in her
examination-in-chief wherein she has categorically stated about
her income per annum and the loss of future income. Both the
Tribunal and the Aigh Court have not properly evaluated the B
evklence on record and have not applied the law on the point
to determine the future loss of income of the appellant and on
other heads to award just and reasonable compensation.
Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
impugned judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are c
/ '" erroneous in th.is regard and are liable· to be set aside and
require m'odification with award of just and reasonable
compensation:She has stated in her evidence that she earned
Rs.50,000/- from "Ponds beauty" competition, Rs.30,000/- from
Oriya feature film "Maa Pari Kiye Haba'', Rs.. 60,000/- from Oriya 0
feature film "Dharma Debata", Rs. 75,000/- from Malayalam
feature film "Paith Dhigem Alam", Rs.10,000/- from each T.V.
serial, Rs.5,000 to Rs.7,000/- from each album. Further, it is
urged by the learned Senior Counsel that both the Tribunal as
well as the High Court erred in [lOt differentiating between E
pecuniary damages and non pecuniary damages at the time
of determining compensation and awarding the same. The law
is well settled by this Court that pecuniary damages under
various heads such as expenses incurred by the appellant that
is, medical expenses, expenses spent towards surgeries, loss
of earning during the period of medical treatment and expenses F
incurred by her to engage an attendant and other material
losses suffered by her, should have been awarded by the
Tribunal and the High Court under pecuniary damages: The·
Tribunal did not consider the above relevant aspects and
' ... evidence on record to award just and reasonable G
compensation. In relation to other two aspects, that is, loss of
earning up to the date of trial and other losses suffered by the
appellant, the same were also not considered. The Tribunal and
the High Court have erred in not granting relief to the appellant
considering the aspect of the loss of expectation of life on H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.'C.R.

A account of grievous injuries and shortened longevity of the
appellant's life. The Tribunal and the High Court have erred in
not granting relief to the appellant by appreciating the facts of
inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, "
frustration and mental stress, pain and suffering and agony
B caused to her. They further failed to take into consideration the
most important fact, that the face of the injured appellant was
fully and hopelessly disfigured due to accident and she got
plastic surgery on her entire face and other parts of her body
by the plastic surgeons outside the State of Odisha. After
c plastic surgery, the appellant's face appearance got changed
and she herself was not able to recognize her changed face in
the mirror. It is further urged by the learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the appellant that both the Tribunal as well as the High
Court have failed to take into consideration all the relevant facts
deposed by her before the Tribunal- that she has been
0
undergoing treatment due to the accident which would continue
till the complications subsist and she requires a lot of money
to be spent for her future treatment and she also requires an
attendant for this purpose. Therefore, impugned judgments and
E awards of both the Tribunal and the High Court are vitiated.qn
both the counts of erroneous finding and error in law as they
have not awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour
of the appellant.

11. Mr. S.L. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on
F behalf of the Insurance Company has justified the impugned
judgment, award and order passed by the High Court.
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 however, were deleted from the array
of parties in these appeals by the order of this Court at the
request of the appellant. The learned counsel contended that
G the High Court has e:xercised its appellate jurisdiction, on proper
appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record and it is
justified in reducing the compensation awarded under the
heading of pecuniary damages as the injured appellant did not
establish her claim regarding the expensesjncurred by her for
H the purpose of medical treatment, purchase of medicine and
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1133
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
llli.c.' y_ other incidental expenses by producing the bills, receipts and A
vouchers. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in· placing
reliance on those documents which were not marked as
'
exhib.its to prove her claim under the heading of 'Medical
Expenses' and other incidental expenses and it has awarded
~xorbitant compensation under head of pecuniary damages B
~hich is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the High Court has
rightly taken into consideration the entire documentary evidence
on record and is justified in awarding compensation .at
~
Rs.7,77,000/- under the heading towards expenses, treatment
charges and expenses towards medicines. Therefore, the c
- same does not call for interference by this Court.

12. Further, it was contended by the counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company that the compensation
awarded under different heads referred to supra towards non
pecuniary damages is not based on proper appreciation of D
?
facts and legal evidence on record particularl'.f'in the absence
of evidence to prove the fact that she is an income tax
assessee since no proof is produced in this regard before the
Tribunal to prove her annual income based on which her future
loss of income could be determined. Therefore, he submits that E
the appellant is not entitled for the· reliefs as prayed for in these
appeals. Hence, he submits that these are not fit cases to
interfere with the impugned judgments, award or the order of
F
the High Court and the appellant is not ·entitled to enhancement
of compensation as claimed by her in her appeal. Hence, he F
has prayed for the dismissal of the appeals filed by the
~·
.•
! appellant. With reference to the above rival factual .and legal
contentions, the following points would arise for consideration:

~ (i) Whether the impugned judgment, order and award
G
passed in MACA 580 and 846/ 2007 and Misc. Case No
386/2011 in MACA 580 is legal and valid?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs.17 lakhs
_. and odd towards pecuniary damages in favour of the
appellant namely, medical charges, medicine expenses H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 13 S.C.R.

A and other expenses on the basis of the documentary '< 1
evidence on record?

(iii) Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced
compensation under the different heads of non pecuniary
damages?
B
(iv) If so, to what compensatio~ and for what award the
appellant is E;intitled to?
>-
13. Point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered together as they
c are interrelated with each other, by assigning the following
reasons: ~--

The High Court has gravely erred both on facts and in law
in interfering with the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal in reducing the pecuniary damages awarded towards
D medical expenses incurred-by the appellant herein from .;
Rs.17,51,726/- to Rs.7,77,000/- solely on the ground·that there
is no documentary evidence in relation to the amount spent
towards medical expenses which is awarded by the Tribunal.
This assumption by the learned Judge of High Court is factually
E not correct As could be s~en fro_ll}the record, there are large
number of medical bills and vouchers produced by the appellant
for having spent the money towards the surgeries conducted
upon her and payment made to the various Hospitals and
Nursing Homes namely, V.S.S. Medical Hospital, Burla, Kalinga "'
F Hospital, Bhubaneshwar, Nursing Home, Cuttack along with ~

purchase of medicines for the aforesaid period which run to 'f"
Rs.17,51,726/-. The above said factual aspects are stated in '
unequivocal terms in her statement of evidence, and she has
also referred to the documents such as bills, receipts and ~

Jo..
G vouchers obtained by her from various medical stores on the ·
basis of the prescriptions of the doctors who have treated her. >-
Some of the documents were marked in the evidence·· of PW-
3 - the appellant herein and she had spoken about the expenses
incurred towards her treatment and purchase of medicines. In
H relation to some other documents, the learned counsel for the
"\\ ,.
'·· '
~

REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL, INSURANCE CO. ·LTD. 1135
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

~ Insurance Company has objected for making them exhibits A
without raising tenable objections. The learned member of the
"
Tribunal neither upheld nor rejected the objection raised by the
counsel on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company at the
time of marking documents through the appellant in her
evidence. Nonetheless, the learned member of the Tribunal has B
taken those documents into consideration and has awarded
compensation under pecuniary damages having regard to the
clinching evidence on record that the surgeries were conducted
~
and treatment was taken by her in various hospitals and Nursing
·Homes for a period of four years. The correctness of the said c
claim is examined by us with reference to the documents in Ann,
P-7 produced in this case, in which· date-wise particulars with
regard to the name of the Institutions and Medical Stores, the
--! expenses incurred and bill numbers, payment made for the
purpose of conducting blood tests, purchase of medicines, D
~· purchase of blood from the blood bank and cost of surgeries
spent by the appellant are given. The Tribunal, in the absence
of rebuttal evidence and the nature of cross examination of the
appellant-PW3 made by the learned counsel on behalf of the
lnsutance Company and the evidence adduced by the appellant
E
herein and the claim made by her under the pecuniary
damages towards the medical expenses, tests, surgeries etc.
and other incidental purposes, has accepted and has rightly
\awarded a sum of Rs. 17,51, 726/- under the heading of
medical expenses. The same has been arbitrarily and
unreasonably, without assigning any cogent and valid reason, F
interfered with by the High Court and it has erroneously
modified the judgment by reducing the amount from Rs.
17,51,726/- to Rs. 7,77,000/-. This has been very lightly
interfered with by the learned Judge of the High Court without
.... application of mind and consideration of legal evidence on G
record particularly in the absence of rebuttal evidence and
further, the Insurance Company was unable to show that the
documents referred to supra produced by the appellant in her
evidence are fabricated documents, which have been produced
with deliberate intention to prefer a false claim in this regard H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A as contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance
Company. We have carefully examined the evidence on record
< '1
and the findings of the Tribunal to examine as to whether the r.,_
findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment
for .reduction of pecuniary damages from Rs.17,51,726/- to
B Rs.7,77,000/- is correct. On careful perusal of the evidence and
documents produced by the appellant we have to hold that the
finding and reason recorded by the High Court is wholly
erroneous in law as the same is contrary to the facts pleaded
and proved by producing evidence on record. Therefore, the
~ same requires to be interfered with by this Court in these
~

appeals. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the
affirmative in favour of the appellant. The finding and reason
recorded by the High Court in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation under the various heads of non pecuniary
) damages for which she is legally entitled to on the basis of
proven facts, legal evidence on record and law laid down by
this Court, is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in
law. On this aspect, separate reasons are assigned while
answering point Nos. (iii) & (iv).

14. Point No.(iii) is also required to be answered in favour
of the appellant. We are of the view that the -appellant is
substantially entitled to enhancement of compensation under
various heads of non-pecuniary damages having regard to the
concurrent findings recorded on this aspect of the matter by the
High Court. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have accepted
the nature of injuries sustained by her and the percentage of
permanent partial disablement suffered by her due to the Motor
Vehicle Accident as per the Disability Certificate No.943 dated
24.2.2006 issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the District
Medical Board of Sambalpur. This aspect of the matter is very
relevant for the purpose of examining the claim of the appellant
and also to find out as to whether the Tribunal and the High Court
were justified in not awarding just and reasonable
compensation in favour of the appellant under the various
heads of non-pecuniary damages. This Court is required to
REKHA-JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO, LTD. 1137
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

" keep in mind justice, equity and good conscience which must A
be the primary, relevant and important aspects for awarding just
·- and reasonable compensation to an unfortunate victim, the
' appellant herein who has sustained grie\l'e(Js injuries to her body
and whose future prospects are completely doomed. Further;
the Tribunal and courts while awarding compensation for bodily B
injuries, must realise that the possession of one's own body is
the first and most valuable of all humao rights and that all other
possessions and ownership are the extensions of the basic
~
right. Bodily injuries s~oold be equated with the deprivation
which entitles a claimant to damages and the amount of.
damages varies in accordance with the gravity of injuries. In this
c
regard, it is worthwhile to refer to.certain paragraphs which have
been referred to by the Karnataka High Court iil"the case of K.
Narasimha Murthy vs. The Manager, Oriental Insurance
Company Limited and Anr., 1 wherein the Division Bench of the
~ Karnataka High Court has considered the relevant important D
aspects from the judgment of this Court and the House of Lords
and different learned scholars and authors of books on
awarding pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The
abovementioned decision states about the approach of the
Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals and Courts for awarding just E
and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimants in
relation to the bodily injuries suffered by them. It is worthwhile
.. to extract Paragraph 16 from K. Narasimhri Murthy case
(supra), which reads as under:
F
"16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while
assessing compensation, should take into account all
relevant circumstances, evidence, legal principles
governing quantification of compensation. Further, they
,
-+ have to approach the issue of awarding compensation on G
the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good
conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-
making. There should be realisation on the part of the

1. ILR 2004 Karnataka 2471. H,
-
_...
• y
REKHA JAIN v: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

Admiralty Comrs v. S.S. Valeria, 3 has observed thus:
1139

"fhe true method of expression, I think, is that in calculating
A

damages you are to consider what is the pecuniary
consideration which will make good to the sufferer, as far
as money can do so, the loss which he has suffered as B
the natural result of the wrong done to him".

17. Further, Lord Blackb1.,1rn in Livingstone v. Rawyards
; Coat Company4, has held as under:

"Where any injury is to be compensated by damages, in C
settling the sum of money to be given .... you should as
nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put
the person who ~as been injured .... in the same position
as he would have been in if he had not sustained the
wrong." D

18. Lord.Morris in his memorable speech in H. West and
Sons, pointed out this aspeCt in the following words:

"Money may be awarded so that something tangible may
be procured to replace of like nature which has been E
destroyed or lost. But, the money cannot renew a physical
frar;ne that has been battered and shattered. All the Judges
and Courts can do is to award sums which must be
regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the
process there must be the endeavour to secure some F
uniformity in the general method of approach. By common
assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed
with moderation. Further, more it is eminently desirable that
so far as possible comparative injuries sliould be
~ compensated by comparable awards." G

19. In Ward v. James5 , speaking for the Court of Appeal
3. (1922)2 A.C. 242 at p. 248.
4. 1880 5 App. Cas. 25 at p. 39.
5. 1966 1 Q.B. 273 at pp. 299-300. H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] .13 S.C.R.

A in England, Lord Denning laid down three basic principles while
dealing with the. question of awarding compensation for
personal injury:

"Firstly, assessability: In cases of grave injury, where the
body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to
B
assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the
1
award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from
experience or from awards in comparable cases.
Secondly, L1niformity: There should be some measure of
uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given
c in similar cases, other"Yise, there will be great
dissatisfaction 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 particular case,
D for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not · <
brought to Court, a thing very much to the public good.

In deciding on the quantum of damages to be paid to a
person for the personal injury suffered by him, the Court is
E bound to ascertain all considerations which will make good
to the sufferer of the injuries, as far as money can do, the
loss which he has suffered as. a natural consequence of
the wrong done to him."

20. Further, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in
F Basavaraj v. Shekafl, has held as und_er:

"If the original position cannot b~ restored - as indeed in
personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously
be - the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in
G money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so
'make good' the damage.

Therefore, the general principle which should govern the
assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that
H 6. ILR 1987 Kar. 1399
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTb. 1141
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
the Court should award t9 injured person such a sum of A
money as will put him in the same position as he would
have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. Bat: it is
manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate
an injured man and renew a shattered human frame."
B
(Emphasis laid by the Court)

21. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in Parry v. Cleaver", has
said:

"To compensateJn money for pain and for physical c
consequences is invariably difficult but. .. no other process
can be devised than that of making a monetary
assessment".

(Emphasis laid by the Court)
D
22. The necessity that the damages should be full and
adequate was stressed by the Court of Queen's Bench in Fair
v. London and North Western Railway Company8 In Rushton
v. National Coal Board9,
. Singleton L.J. has said. that:
E
"When damages have to be assessed in a case of this
kind there are many elements for consideration: the pain
and suffering undergone and that which may occur in the
future: the loss of some of the amenities of life; the fact
. that a man with an injury of this kind will always require some
F
measure of help, even though he may be able to earn
considerable money. These are some of the matters which
have to be taken into consideration. and another is the fact
that his earnings will probably be less than they were
before."
. .
G
(Emphasis laid by the Court)

7. [1970) 1 AC 1 at p. 22.
8. · 21 LT. (N.S.) 326 (1869).
9. 1953 1 QB 495 at p. 499. H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 23. In Fo/wer v. Grace10, Edmund Davies, L.J., has said 'r
that:

"It is the manifest duty of the Tribunal to give as perfect a
sum as was within its power'. There are many losses which
cannot easily be expressed in terms of money. If a person.
B in an accident. loses his sight. hearing or smelling faculty
or a limb. value of such deprivation cannot be assessed
in terms of market value because there is no market value
for the personal asset which has been lost in the accident.
and there is no easy way of expressing its equivalent in
c terms of money. Nevertheless a valuation in terms of money
must be made, because, otherwise, the law would be
sterile and not able to give any remedy at all. Although
accuracy and certainty were frequently unobtainable, a fair
assessment must be made. Although undoubtedly there
D are difficulties and uncertainties in assessing damages in
personal injury cases, that fact should not preclude an
assessment as best as can, in the circumstances be
made."

E (Emphasis laid by the Court)

24. In re the Mediana, 11 the plaintiffs were deprived of the
use of their own lightship, but sustained no pecuniary loss as
another lightship was kept in reserve. Yet, it was held that the
plaintiffs were entitled to substantial damages for the loss of
F the use of their ship for a period, and Lord Halsbury L.C.
answered the objection that assessment was too uncertain by
observing that:

"Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages
G is one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay
down any principle upon which you can give damages;
nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand

10. (1.970) 114 Sol. Jo.193.
'f\-1 11. [1900]AC 113atp.116.
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1143
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
1 in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in A
money shall be given 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 B
represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a
person has undergone by reason of an accident ... But,
nevertheless, the law recognises that as a topic upon
which damages may be given.

.In personal injury cases. the Court is constantly
c
required to form an estimate of chances and risks which
cannot be determined with precision. It is because. the law
will disregard possibilities which are slight or chances
which are nebulous; otherwise. all the circumstances of the
situation must be taken into account. whether they relate D
to the future which the plaintiff would have enjoyed if the
accident had not happened. or to the future of his injuries
and his earning power after the accident. Damages are
compensation for an injury or loss. that is to say, the full
equivalent of money so far as the nature of money admits; E
and difficulty or uncertainty does not prevent an
assessment."

(Emphasis laid by the Court)
F
25. It is well-settled principle that in granting compensation
for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated (1) for
pain and suffering; (2) for loss of amenities; (3) shortened
expectation of life, if any; (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning
. ·""' capacity or in some cases for both; and (5) medical treatment
and other special damages. In personal injury cases the two G
main elements are the personal loss and pecuniary loss. Chief
Justice Cockburn in Fair's case, supra, distinguished the
above two aspects thus:

"In assessing the compensation the jury should take into H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS -[2013] 13 S.C.R.

A account two things, first, the pecuniary loss the plaintiff
sustains by the accident : secondly, the injury he sustains
in his person, or his physical capacity of enjoying life.
When they come to the consideration of the pecuniary loss
they have to take into account not only his present loss,
B but his incapacity to earn a future improved income".

26. McGregor on Damages (14th Edition) at paragraph
no. 1157, referring to the heads of damages in personal injury
actions, states as under:
c "The person physically injured may recover both for
his pecuniary_ losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of
these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two
separate items, viz., the loss of earnings and other gains
which the plaintiff would have made had he not been
D injured and the medical and other expenses to which he
<
is put as a result of the injury, and the Courts have sub-
.divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories,
viz., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss
of expectation of life".
E
Besides, the Court is well-advised to remember that
the measures of damages in all these cases 'should be
such as to enable even a tort feasor to say that he had
amply atoned fo~ his misadventure'. The observation of
Lord Devlin that the proper aoproach to the problem or to
F adopt ·a test as to what conte~porarv 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'. is quite apposite
to be kept in mind by the Court in assessing compensation
G in personal injury cases."

(Emphasis laid by the Court)

27. In R. Venkatesh v. P. Saravanan & Ors.12, the High
H 12. 2001(1) Kar. L.J. 411.
..
'
'
·'

REKHA JAIN v. -NATiONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1145
....,, [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

-· t Court of Karnataka while dealing with a personal injury case A
wherein the claimant sustained certain crushing injuries due to
which his left lower limb was amputated, held that in terms of
functional disability, the disability sustained by the claimant is
total and 100% though only the claimant's left lower limb was
amputated. In paragraph 9 of the judgment; the Court held as 8
under:

"9. As a result of the amputation, the claimant had been
" rendered a cripple. He requires the help of crutches even
for walking. He has become unfit for any kind of manual
work. As he was earlier a loader doing manual work, the C
amputation of his left leg below knee, has rendered him
unfit for any kind of manual work. He has no education. In
such cases, it is well-settled that the economic and
functional disability will have to be treated as total, even
though the physical disability is not 100 per cent". D

28. lord Reid in Baker v. Willoughby 13 , has said:

"A man is not compensated for the physical injury;
he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result
of that injury. His loss is not in having a stiff leg; it is in his. E
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
amenities which depend on freedom of movement and his
(
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have
earned ..... "
F
29. The aforesaid principles laid down by this Court,
Appeal Cases, House of Lords and leading authors and
experts referred to supra, whose opinions have been extracted
above, with all fours, are applicable to the fact situation for
awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the G
appellant as she had sustained grievous injuries on her face
and other parts of the body which is assessed at 30%
permanent disablement by competent doctors.

13. (1969) 3 All ER 1528 at p. 1532.
H
-- - --- -·- -· ---
~1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A 30. The finding of fact is recorded by the Tribunal on the
question of the accident caused on account of rash and
negligent driving on the part of offending truck driver on
17.8.2001; the date of the accident on account of which the
appellant herein has sustained grievous injuries and has
·undergone trauma and mental agony for over a period of four
8
years. She had also gone through a number of surgeries on
accsxmt of this accident in which her face has been disfigured.
With regard to the nature of injuries sustained by her, the District
Medical Board of Sambalpur, represented by the Chief
C Medical Officer has issued disability certificate certifying that
the appellant l:ias suffered disability to the extent of 30%. The
finding recorded by the Tribunal on this important aspect of the
case on the basis of legal evidence is not challenged either by
the owner of the truck or by the Insurance Company and it could
not have challenged the finding without obtaining the permission
D as required under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act to ·
avail the defence of the insured to contest the case as has
been held by a three judge bench of this Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nico/Jetta Rohtagi & Ors14 • The

E
.relevant paragraphs read as under: I
"15. It is relevant to note that Parliament, while enacting
sub-section (2) of Section 149 only specified some of the
defences which are 'based on conditions of the policy and,
therefore, any other breach of conditions of the policy by
F the insured which does not find place in sub-section (2) of
Section 149 cannot be taken as a defence by the insurer.
If Parliament had intended to include the breach of other
conditions of the policy as a defence, it could have easily
provided any breach of condition~ of insurance policy in
sub-section (2) of Section 149. If we permit the insurer to·
G
take any other defence other than those specified in sub-
section (2) of Section 149, it would mean we are adding
more defences to the insurer in the statute which is neither
found in the Act nor was intended to. be included.
H 14. (2002i 7 sec 456.

' '
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1147'
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
-:· 1'
16. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the A
statutory defences which are available to the insurer to
contest a claim are confined to what are provided in sub-
section (2) of Section 149 of the 1988 Act and not more
and for that reason if an insurer is to file an appeal;..the
challenge in the appeai would confine to only those B
grounds."

The said finding of fact has attained. the finality and the
compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal and affirmed
by the High Court. The only aspect which was required to be
examined by the High Court in the appeals file_d both by the
c
respondent Insurance Company as well as by the appellant was
that the quantum of compensation required to be awarded in
her favour under the different heads of non-pecuniary damages
as per the principles laid down by this Court, House of Lords,
Queens Bench and Authors in various judgments and extracts D
'r
from various texts and books respectively, referred to supra.

31. Both the Tribunal as well as the High Co!]rt have
gravely erred both on facts and in law in not evaluating the legal
evidence I)
on record to award just and reasonable E
compensation in favour of the appellant keeping in view the fact
that the appellant was a good actress, model and has acted in
many films, albums, T.V. serials etc. This evidence is not
).. c
challenged though the appellant was cross examined by the
counsel for the respondent Insurance Company extensively F
without obtaining the.,permission from.the Tribunal as required
under Section 17o(b) to contest in the proceeding. In the
absence of such permission, the Insurance Company has got
limited defence as provided under section 149(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, which provides for the conditions which G
determines breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. The Tribunal did not apply the legal principles laid down
by this Court to award just and reasonable compensation by
following various guiding factors and legal principles under the
heading of future loss of earnings. It has also not awarded
H
compensation under the following heads namely (1)damages
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A ·for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already -;· ....
undergone by the appellant or she is likely to undergo in future,
(2) damages for loss of amenities of life on account of injury
• due to which the appellant is unable to act in the films and (3)
damages for the loss of expectations of life, inconvenience,
B hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental
stress in life. The said principles have been recognized by this
· Court time and again in catena of cases reference to which are
not required to be mentioned again as we have referred to the
same in the preceeding paragraphs of this judgment.
c 32. Since under the head of non pecuniary damages the
Tribunal did not award reasonable compensation, the appellant .
has rightly approached the High Court by filing MACA No.846
of 2007. The said appeal was heard along with MACA No. 580
of 2007 filed by the respondent Insurance Company which has
D affirmed the compensation awarded under the non-pecuniary
damages by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment passed in .
the said appeal for enhancement of compensation under the
aforesaid heads. Without considering the legal grounds urged
in the appeal filed by the appellant, it has simply dismissed the
E appeal of the appellant for the reasons recorded in the judgment
passed in the appeal of the Insurance Company. The dismissal
of the appeal ot the appellant in view of the order passed in
MACA No.580 of 2007 without assigning any reason
whatsoever for enhancement of compensation is arbitrary and
F unreasonable: Therefore, the appellant is justified in challenging.
the said order in these appeals. It is in the evidence of the
appellant that at the time of accident her age was 24 years,
which is not disputed by the respondents.

G 33. It is also in her evidence that sije was an actress who
acted in T.V. serial titled 'Swara Sudha', which was an album
directed by Harish Mohanty. She also acted in the motion
picture in Oriya titled 'Ma Pari Kiye Haba'. She was the lead
actress in this picture. By Cane Critics Award Organisation,
H she was adjudged. ~s the 'Best Actress' and the 'Best New
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1149
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
Comer Artist' in that film and she also performed in the lead A
'1'
role in the Oriya Feature Film 'Dharma Debata' directed by
Bijaya Bhaskar Reddy. She also acted in Malayalam Feature
film named 'Paith Thingel Kalam' as heroine, which was
directed by Jaya Krishna. She has further stated in her evidence
that she has signed for the feature film in Oriya 'Pua Bada B
Jagata Jita' and another feature film in Oriya 'Pua Bhangidela
Sun a Sanbar'. But she could not act in those films due to the
~
accident. Further she has stated that she was in the lead role
in the two completed T.V. serials 'Atrupta Atma' and
1
-I • 'Akhabuluthile Chakabuluthaa'. She was an artist in the Oriya c
~ Albums 'Jhankar' and 'Mahake Rajni Gandha'. She had also
signed Hindi T.V. Serial 'Silla Padma' by Dr. Pravita Roy as
heroine but could not perform in the serial due to the accident.
She has. acted in advertisement films for products like Coca
Cola, Saree and Saree house etc. She had also performed in D
Oriya Cassette namely 'Mu Kendrapada Jhia' which was an
) audiocassette.

34. Further, she has stated in her evidence that at the time
of accident she had .completed her graduation in Commerce
from G.M. College, Sambalpur and she was pursuing her E
studies for her post graduate degree in that College. Prior to
her a·dmission to P.G. Class, she had done P.G. Diploma
course in Hotel Management from the Institute of Hotel
). Management and Catering Technology, Bhubaneswar. She has
further stated that while pursuing her studies she was F
performing in the films referred to supra. She has further stated
that after the accident, her physical fitness, physical appearance
and her zeal to perform in films have been reduced to zero. The
vital statistics required of her for modeling has also become
disproportionate after the accident. She has categorically G
stated that she became permanently handicapped and
disabled. She has also stated that prior to the accident she was
lean and thin. But due to continued treatment after accident, she
gained 4 to 5 k.gs. The aforesaid positive and substantive legal
evidence remained unshaken in the cross examination of the H
)-

1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A appellant - PW-3 by the counsel of the respondent Insurance
Company, though he was not entitled to cross examine all these
aspects since the Company did not obtain the permission from
the Tribunal. Nonetheless, permission was granted by the
Tribunal to cross examine the appellant-PW3. Despite her
B cross examination by the counsel, the aforesaid important facts
could not be shaken and the same remained unchallenged and
undisturbed.

35. The registered owner of the car in which she was
traveling belonged to her mother. The truck dashed against her
C car at the driver's seat which was occupied by the appellant.
The Tribunal has not accepted the case of the Insurance
Company that the appellant was driving the car negligently.

36. In the cross examination of the appellant - PW-3
D except eliciting answer that there is no written contract for
playing the role of modeling for the Ponds Products for 3 years
so also for acting in Albums, T.V. serials or films, the fact
remained that even in the absence of written contracts, the fact
that she has been acting as an actress in the aforesaid films
E is proved since the said portion of the evidence remained
unchallenged. The case pleaded by the appellant that she has
been acting in films, T.V. serials, modeling and participating
in the award competition is established by pleadings and
evidence on record. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced in
F this regard by either the insured or by the Insurance Company.

37. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal stating that
she has been acting as an actress has been re-affirmed by the
High Court by affirming the award of compensation under the
various heads of non-pecuniary damages. Despite the cogent
G and substantive evidence adduced on record by the appellant
before the Tribunal, neither has it awarded just and reasonable
compensation nor the High Court has enhanced the same in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction by re-appreciating the
pleadings and evidence on record.
H
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1151
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly A
the facial features are very important to act in the films and in
T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident
her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become
fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress
in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she B
has been carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the
opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face,
to act in'the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress-
in supporting role or any other role to be played in T.V. seriaJs,
albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the c
appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur,
her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature
of injuries and observations made by this Court and Karnataka
High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a
finding of fact that the appellant's permanent disability should D
be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act
in the films and -in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on
account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional
disability. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment
of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.
E
V. Mubasir Ahmed15 . This Court has held that loss of earning
capacity is not a substitute for percentage of physical
disablement. It is simply one of the factors taken into account
to award just and reasonable compensation. Even though the
claimant does not suffer from 100% physical permanent
disability, he suffers from 100% functional disability if he loses
F
the capacity to pursue his work as a result of the accident. It is
worthwhile to extract paragraph no. 8 from the aforesaid
judgment which reads as under:

"8. Loss of earning capacity is, therefore, not a substitute G
for percentage of the physical disablement. It is one of the
factors taken into account. In the instant case the doctor
who examined the claimant also noted about the functional
disablement. In other words, the doctor had taken note of
1s. 2007 (2) sec 349. H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A the relevant factors relating to loss of earning capacity.
Without indicating any reason or basis the High Court held
that there was 100% loss of earning capacity."

39. In Pa/raj v. North East Karnataka Road Transport
B Corpn., 16 where the appellant was a driver, this Court held that
although the appellant has lost the use of his legs, the same
amounts to total disablement as far as driving a vehicle is
concerned.

40.-ln Nizam's Institute of M€1dical Sciences v. Prasanath
C S. Dhananka, 17 this Court has observed as under:

''88. We must emphasise 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
o party saying that nothing is payable. Sympathy for the
victim does not. and should not. come in the way of making
a correct assessment. but if a case is made out, the court
must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation.
The "adequate compensation" that we speak of. must to
E some extent. be a rule of thumb measure, and as a
balance has to be struck, it would be difficult to satisfy all
the parties concerned.

F 90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in
an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis
a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial
shock gives way to a feeling of resignation·and
acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on.
G The case of an injured and disabled person is, however,
more pitiable and the feeling of hurt. helplessness. despair
and often destitution enures every day. The.support that

16. 2010 (10) sec '347
H 17. 2009 (6) sec 1.
· REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1153
(V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

is needed by a severely hanrnca1;rned gerson comes at an A
enormous grice, ghysical, financial and emotional, not only
on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants

- and the stress sags their energy and destroys their
equanimity.

(emphasis supplied)
B

91. We can also visualise the anxiety of the complainant
and his parents for the future after the latter, as must all of
us, inevitably fade away. We, have, therefore computed the
compensation keeping in mind that his brilliant career has c
been cut short and there is, as of now, no possibility of
improvement in his condition, the compensation will ensure
a steady and reasonable income to him for a time when
he is unable to earn for himself."
., D
41. In this regard, in Baker's case supra, it has been
stated by Lord Reid that a man is not compensated for the >)

physical injury; he is compensated for the loss which he suffers
as a result of that injury. Therefore, the functional disability is a
forceful alteration of career option of the appellant who has E
already undergone physical and mental injuries because of the
accident. It would amount to adding distress to injury if one is
f
forced to work with difficulty to earn his/her livelihood so as to
reduce the burden of the wrongdoer in terms of compensation.

42. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and F
various courts and High Court of Karnataka and authors
referred to supra, we have to record the finding of fact having
regard to the nature of grievous injuries and her disfigured face
• --', and that she was acting as an actress in the films, T.V. serials,
etc. her functional disablement is 100%. This relevant aspect G
of the matter has been conveniently omitted to be considered
both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court while
determining compensation under various heads of non-
pecuniary damages. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the
view that under the different heads of non-pecuniary damages H
1154 SUPREiME COURT REPORTS (2013] 13 S.C.R.

A she is entitled to higher compensation in her appeal. For that
purpose, we are required to consider her annual income for the
purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation
under the aforesaid different heads of non-pecuniary damages.
It is in her evidence that her income depends upon the project.
B She got 30;000/- for her first film "Maa Pari Kiye Haba" and
Rs.75,000/- for Malayalam film 'Paith Digem Alam'. For her
performance in a serial, she used to get within Rs.7000/- to
10,000/-. She had received Rs.50,000/- for winning the "Ponds
Women of Tomorrow" Contest. The said evidence remains
c unchallenged in the cross examination by the counsel for the_
respondent Insurance Company. Having regard to her age and
qualification and that she was acting in various Oriya and
Malayalam films, T.V. serials and that she was in the beginning
stage of her acting career and having regard to the fact that
0 she has acted in various films, she would have definitely had a
very good chance for acting in future if she had not suffered the
grievous injuries, facial disfigurement and other injuries on
account of the accident. She has also stated in her evidence
that she is an assessee for income tax. She has got PAN card
E and has produced the same. Having regard to the aforesaid
legal evidence on record and in the absence of documentary
evidence to show her probable annual income, it would be
proper for this Court to take her probable annual income as
Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of computation of her future loss
of earning. We have already held that though the disability
F certificate speaks of her disability at 30% on account of
disfigurement of the face and other injuries to her body, her
physical fitness is completely changed, she has put on weight
4 to 5 kgs., she is not fit to act and no film producer will offer
her roles in their films to act as an actress. Having regard to
G the nature of the vocation, we have to hold that she is suffering
from 100% functional disability. In the light of the facts of this
case and keeping in view the aforesaid evidence on record that
she is a film actress and also taking into consideration that in
the film world of this country the heroine will certainly get the
H substantial sum for acting in films, T.V. serials, modeling, it
REKHA JAIN v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1155
[V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
.,;
'
~ would be just and proper for us to take 50% of her annual A
income for the purpose of computation of her future loss of
income keeping in view that throughout her life she may not be
in a position to act in the films, albums and modeling. Her
annual income is assessed at Rs.5,00,000/-. 50% of which is
Rs.2,50,000/- per annum which is multiplied by 17 as the proper B
multiplier considering her age at the time of accident by
applying the legal principle laid down by this Court in Sar/a
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr., 18 which
amounts to Rs.42,50,000/-. Hence, we award Rs.42,50,000/-
compensation under the aforesaid head. The Tribunal awarded c
only Rs.2,00,000/- which is enhanced to Rs.42,50,000/- under
the said head.

43. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
for the loss of amenities, pleasure of life and her inability to
D
attend social functions in future, which is inadequate, therefore,
~
it should be enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/-.

44. Towards the pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.1,00,000/-. It should be proper to award another
Rs:9,00,000/- as she has undergone ordeal for the period of'4 E
years continuously taking treatment in Odisha and Kerala States
and the damages for mental ·and physical shock, pain and
suffering, disfigurement of the face and other bodily injuries she
~ already suffered continuously or likely to suffer.
F
45. The Tribunal awarded Rs.17,15,726/- towards the
medical expenses based on the legal evidence and, therefore
we affirm the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

46. Thus, the total compensation amounting to
~"!
' _,., Rs. 79,65, 726/- which is rounded of to Rs. 79,66,000/-along with G
interest at the rate of 6% per annum is award.ed from the date
of application till the date of deposit of the amount. The
aforesaid enhancement of compensation under different heads

1s. 2009 (6) sec 121. H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R.

A referred to supra, in our considered view would be just and
reasonable compensation in this case.

47. Before parting with the judgment, it would be just and
necessary for this Court to make observation that the Motor
B Accidents Claims Tribunals and the Appellate Courts should
keep in view the rights of the claimants under the provisions of
the M.V. Act to determine the compensation claims of the
claimants by considering the facts of each case and the legal
position laid down by this Court on relevant aspects.
c 49. Accordingly, the appeals of the appellant are allowed
in the above said terms. We set aside the impugned judgment,
award and orders passed by the High Court. The respondent
Insurance Company is directed to deposit 70% of the awarded
compensation along with proportionate interest with any
D Nationalized Bank of the choice of the appellant in fixed deposit
and the remaining 30% with proportionate inter~st, after
deducting any amount if already paid by the respondent as
awarded by the High Court should be disbursed .to the appellant
within six weeks on proper identification. There will be no order
E as to costs.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals allowed.