JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Both these appeals have been heard and are being decided together as these arise from the same award. 2. FAO No.69 of 2019 has been preferred by the insurer, whereas FAO No.01 of 2019 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of award. 3. The claimant has suffered 100% disability as a result of injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident. The claimant was an occupant of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01M-1920, which had met with an accident on 10.05.2015 at Village Sidhi Nalla, near Kandidhar, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P. 4. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”) before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi (for short, “the tribunal”). It was submitted that on fateful day, the claimant was one of the occupants of the offending vehicle which had been hired by a marriage party. As alleged, due to high speed, the driver of the vehicle had lost control and the vehicle had rolled down the hill about 150 meters. 5. As per the claimant, besides a MNREGA worker he was engage in agricultural pursuits. The claimant had claimed his income at Rs.20,000/- per month from all sources. 6. The owner of the vehicle, Smt. Sunehari Devi was impleaded as respondent No.1 in the claim petition (hereinafter referred to as “the owner”). In her reply, the cause of accident had been attributed mechanical defect in the vehicle. 7. The insurer of the vehicle was impleaded as respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer’). In the reply filed by the insurer, it was stated that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 8. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injury on 10.5.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP- 01M-1920, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? ORR-1& 2. 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01M-1920 holding the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR-2 5. OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? ORR-1& 2. 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01M-1920 holding the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so its effect? OPR-2 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven at the relevant time in violation of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, if so Its effect? OPR-2 6. Relief.” 9. Issue No.1 was answered in affirmative and the claimant was held entitled to amount of Rs.14,92,400/- as compensation under the following heads: Description Amount (Rs) Pain and suffering 2,50,000 Loss of enjoyment/amenities of life 50,000 Loss of earning 50,000 Loss of earning capacity 10,20,000 Medical Expenses & Transportation 22,446 Special diet and attendant 1,00,000 Total 14,92,400 10. In addition, the claimant has also been held entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 11 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 12. The parties are having contest only on the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. Learned counsel for the insurer would contend that the notional income of the claimant for the purposes of assessing loss of earning has wrongly been taken at Rs.10,000/- per month. He submitted that though, the monthly income of the claimant was assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month notionally, but by granting increase of 50% on account of loss of future prospects, the same would be Rs.9,000/- per month, whereas learned Tribunal has without any justification taken the loss of earning at Rs.10,000/- per month. It has also been submitted that in terms of judgment passed by constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 , increase of 40% only was permissible. 13. The award of Rs.2,50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- on special diet and attendant has also been claimed to be excessive. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has made submissions for enhancement of award. He would contend that the claimant has to live in vegetative state throughout his life and has to remain dependent on others and thus, keeping in view his suffering, pain and agony, the compensation was required to be enhanced. 15. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has made submissions for enhancement of award. He would contend that the claimant has to live in vegetative state throughout his life and has to remain dependent on others and thus, keeping in view his suffering, pain and agony, the compensation was required to be enhanced. 15. The assessment of monthly income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be said to be unreasonable. Even if the standard of minimum wages is applied, the monthly income of a person employed as private labour will not be less than Rs.6,000/- per month in the year 2015. The claimant was only 28 years old at the time of accident. 16. The physical disability suffered by the claimant has medically been assessed as 100% permanent. The disability certificate has been proved on record as Ext. PW-7/A. One of the members of Medical Board, that assessed the disability of claimant and issued certificate Ext. PW-7/A, has also been examined as a witness (PW-7). As per disability certificate Ext. PW-7/A, the nature of disability is locomotor. The claimant has been diagnosed having fractured D10, D11 and D12 and paraplegia. 17. PW-7 while deposing before learned Tribunal has specifically stated that the disability was 100% and permanent. The disability was also stated to be non-curable. 18. The claimant, while appearing as his own witness (PW- 1), had specifically stated that as a result of injuries suffered by him, the life had turned into hell as the claimant had been totally incapacitated and disabled. It was further stated that the claimant was bed ridden and had lost sensation below navel. He had suffered paralysis. Two attendants were regularly required as the claimant was not even in a position to answer the call of nature. He was continuously using catheter and diapers. He was not having any sensation in lower limbs and was to live for remaining life in vegetative state. The claimant has not been cross-examined on the above vital aspect. 19. It is more than settled that for assessment of compensation for injured and disabled person, the material factor is the percentage of functional disability. In the facts of the case at hand, the medical disability has been proved to be 100% permanent. The medical opinion is that the claimant would not improve in future. 19. It is more than settled that for assessment of compensation for injured and disabled person, the material factor is the percentage of functional disability. In the facts of the case at hand, the medical disability has been proved to be 100% permanent. The medical opinion is that the claimant would not improve in future. The claimant has also proved his physical condition in the statement made on oath, which has been remained uncontested. In such circumstances, his functional disability can by no means be assessed less than 100%. 20. Learned Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of claimant at 50% and such conclusion of learned tribunal is not supported by any valid reasons. There is no iota of evidence on record which may suggest that the claimant was in a position to earn even a single penny for himself by physical work. Since, the claimant has been held to be a labourer only, having been incapacitated to do any physical labour, there was no possibility for the claimant to earn in future. 21. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant was entitled to enhancement at the rate 40% on monthly income towards loss of future prospects. Thus, the net loss of earning of claimant per month would be Rs.6,000 + 2,400 = Rs.8,400/-. 22. The assessment of Rs.10,000/- per month as loss of income of claimant by learned Tribunal is without any basis and cannot be sustained. The assessment cannot be based on subjective considerations. There has to be some basis for arriving at a particular conclusion. Thus, it is held that the loss of earning of claimant will be Rs.8.400/- per month. The applicable multiplier will be of 17 and thus, the total loss of earning of clamant will be Rs.8400x12x17 =17,13,600/- 23. Further, the claimant, who is of young age, has been rendered 100% disabled on account of paraplegia. In such state, he will have to spend rest of his life by lying on a cot or at the most sitting on a chair. All the chances of enjoyment of life have been snatched from the claimant. Though, no amount of money can compensate such a loss, but it does not mean that the just and adequate compensation should not be awarded for the above noted loss. 24. All the chances of enjoyment of life have been snatched from the claimant. Though, no amount of money can compensate such a loss, but it does not mean that the just and adequate compensation should not be awarded for the above noted loss. 24. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice what has been observed in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2013) 8 SCC 389 as under: “29. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to certain paragraphs which have been referred to by the Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy vs. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. ILR 2004 KAR 2471, wherein the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has considered the relevant important 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 above mentioned decision states about the approach of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals and Courts for awarding just 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.Narasimha Murthy case (supra), which reads as under: “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 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 Tribunals and Courts that the possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable of all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to gravity of injuries.” 25. In Rekha Jain (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to be the justified compensation for loss of amenities and pain and suffering respectively in following terms: “61. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of amenities, pleasure of life and her inability to attend social functions in future, which is inadequate, therefore, it should be enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/-. 62. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of amenities, pleasure of life and her inability to attend social functions in future, which is inadequate, therefore, it should be enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/-. 62. 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 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.” 26. Recently in Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court by taking into consideration what has been held in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others (2020) 4 SCC 413 , Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and another (2022) 7 SCC 738 and K.S. Muralidhar Versus R. Subbulakshmi and Another 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 has held as under: “34. As has been referred to hereinabove, this Court recently in the case of K.S. Muralidhar (supra) relying inter-alia upon the previous decisions of this Court in the cases of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra) awarded a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering to the appellant therein. 35. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kajal (supra), which read thus: “Pain, suffering and loss of amenities 26. Coming to the non-pecuniary damages under the head of pain, suffering, loss of amenities, the High Court has awarded this girl only Rs 3,00,000. In Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Mallikarjun v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 396 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 372 : (2013) 10 Scale 668 ] , this Court while dealing with the issue of award under this head held that it should be at least Rs 6,00,000, if the disability is more than 90%. As far as the present case is concerned, in addition to the 100% physical disability, the young girl is suffering from severe incontinence, she is suffering from severe hysteria and above all she is left with a brain of a nine-month- old child. As far as the present case is concerned, in addition to the 100% physical disability, the young girl is suffering from severe incontinence, she is suffering from severe hysteria and above all she is left with a brain of a nine-month- old child. This is a case where departure has to be made from the normal rule and the pain and suffering suffered by this child is such that no amount of compensation can compensate. 27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the courts or the Tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding the compensation. While awarding this amount, we are not only taking the physical disability but also the mental disability and various other factors. This child will remain bedridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine-month-old child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9-month- old child. This girl will miss out playing with her friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have children who she can love, let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Her's is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs 15,00,000.” (emphasis supplied) 36. This Court has observed that it has to be borne in mind that while assessing compensation in a case like the present one, the claim can be awarded only once. It was observed that the claimant cannot come back to the court for enhancement at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. This Court has observed that it has to be borne in mind that while assessing compensation in a case like the present one, the claim can be awarded only once. It was observed that the claimant cannot come back to the court for enhancement at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. This Court further observed that courts or tribunals assessing compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the mater when awarding compensation. It was observed that while awarding this amount, courts are not only taking into account physical disability but also mental disability and various other factors. 37. Similarly, in the case of Master Ayush (supra), this Court in paragraph 14 observed as under: “14. The determination of damages in personal injury cases is not easy. The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation. Therefore, we find that in view of the physical condition, the appellant is entitled to one attendant for the rest of his life though he may be able to walk with the help of assistant device. The device also requires to be replaced every 5 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to award cost of 2 devices i.e. Rs 10 lakhs. The appellant has not only lost his childhood but also adult life. Therefore, loss of marriage prospects would also be required to be awarded. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of taxi expenses for the reason that the taxi driver has not been produced. It is impossible to produce the numerous taxi drivers. Still further, the Tribunal should have realised the condition of the child who had complete sensory loss in the legs. Therefore, if the parents of the child have taken him in a taxi, probably that was the only option available to them. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs 2 lakhs as conveyance charges.” (emphasis supplied) 38. In the present case also, the appellant will remain dependant on another person for the rest of her life. Even though the physical age will increase, but her mental age will be that of a child studying in the 2nd Standard/Class. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. 39. In the present case also, the appellant will remain dependant on another person for the rest of her life. Even though the physical age will increase, but her mental age will be that of a child studying in the 2nd Standard/Class. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. 39. Similar to the case of Kajal (supra), the appellant in the present case will also miss out on partaking in activities which she would have normally done, if she had not met with this unfortunate accident. 40. The High Court, vide impugned judgment and order, only enhanced the compensation under the head of pain and suffering from Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal to Rs.1,00,000/-. The same is not commensurate to the impact the unfortunate accident had and will have on the appellant as well as her family members for the rest of their lives. In our view, the compensation should be enhanced further. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the present appellant under the head of pain and suffering. c) Loss of marriage prospects 41. In this respect, we reiterate the evidence given by the Dr. Monica Juneja (PW-3) vide the disability certificate wherein she has opined that the mental status of the appellant would be the same as that of a child studying in the 2nd Standard/Class. Further, it was stated that the appellant would also have severe apathy and therefore, maintaining/forming marital/familial bonds with the aforementioned conditions for the appellant is very difficult. 42. The appellant, therefore, has not only lost her childhood but also her adult life. Marriage/companionship is an integral part of the natural life of a human being. Although, in the present case the appellant is capable of reproduction, it is near impossible for her to rear children and enjoy the simple pleasures of marital life and companionship. However, the learned Tribunal in the present case did not award any compensation to the appellant under this head and the High Court, in appeal, without appreciating the impact of the non- pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant only awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss of marriage prospects. 43. However, the learned Tribunal in the present case did not award any compensation to the appellant under this head and the High Court, in appeal, without appreciating the impact of the non- pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant only awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss of marriage prospects. 43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this a fit case where the compensation awarded under the head of loss marriage prospects by the High Court is inadequate and the same must be enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-.” 27. In light of above exposition of law and keeping in view its applicability to the facts of the case, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in lump sum will be just and reasonable compensation to the claimant under the heads pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment/amenities of life at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- under each head. The compensation awarded to the claimant under other heads needs no interference as the same has been reasonably assessed on the basis of material on record. Thus, on recalculation, the compensation payable to the claimant shall be as under: Description Amount (Rs.) Pain and suffering 5,00,000 Loss of enjoyment/amenities of life 5,00,000 Loss of earning 50,000 Loss of earning capacity 17,13,600 Medical Expenses & Transportation 22,446 Special diet and attendant 1,00,000 Total 28,86,046 28. In addition, the interest as awarded by learned tribunal shall remain the same. 29. In result, FAO No.69 of 2019 is dismissed and FAO No.01 of 2019 is allowed. Impugned award dated 28.09.2018, passed by learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No.20/2015 shall stands modified to the above extent. 30. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of in above terms so also the pending application(s), if any.