1 2025:CGHC:48776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1547 of 2019 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shop No. 102 Indira Commercial Complex Behind Natraj Hotel T.P. Nagar Korba Chhattisgarh. Through Legal Officer, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant versus 1 - Naveen Soni S/o Surendra Kumar Soni N Aged About 27 Years Occupation Engineering Student R/o Baikunthpur Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Babita Soni, W/o Surendra Kumar Soni, Age 46 Years, Occupation House Wife, R/o Baikunthpur, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ripu Daman Singh S/o Jagbeer Singh Man Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 186 Choupal Wali Gali, Village Hamidpur, Delhi. 3 - Jagbeer Singh Man S/o Meharlal Man Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 186 Choupal Wali Gali, Village Hamidpur, Delhi. (Claimant) --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 1614 of 2019 Naveen Soni S/o - Surendra Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o - Baikunthpur Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Through Next Friend, Mother Smt. Babita Soni W/o - Surendra Soni Aged About 46 Years R/o - Baikunthpur Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1 - Reepu Daman S/o - Jagbeer Singh Maan Aged About 27 Years R/o - House No 186, Chaupal Wali Gali, Village Hameedpur Delhi (Driver), District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - Jagbeer Singh Maan Aged About 60 Years, R/o - House No 186, Chaupal Wali Gali, Village Hameedpur Delhi (Owner), District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Branch Manager, Through Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 102, Indra Commercial Complex, Behind Natraj Hotel, T.P. Nagar Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. D. L. Dewangan, Advocate (MAC/1547/2019) Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate (MAC/1614/2019) For Respective Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate & Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. D. L. Dewangan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 23/09/2025 1. These appeals have been preferred against the award passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, in claim case No. 119/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 8,34,000/- with interest @ 9 % on account of injury sustained by Naveen Soni (claimant). 2. The Insurance Company has challenged the quantum of the award, whereas the claimant has filed an appeal (MAC No. 1614/2019) for enhancement of compensation. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.02.2010, while the claimant, along with respondent No. 1, was going to Rajpura in a car bearing 3 registration No. DL-08-CD-7591, and when they reached near the ABC factory, the driver of the car, namely Ripu Daman Singh, drove it in a rash and negligent manner, causing the claimant to sustain grievous injuries to his head, chest, and lungs. At the time of the accident, the claimant was a student of Engineering, aged about 27 years. He claimed a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- under various heads. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle were proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company filed its reply, specifically pleading that the FIR was lodged two years after the accident without explanation of the delay, and that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The parties led evidence, and thereafter the learned Claims Tribunal passed the award. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that in the present case, the FIR was lodged two years after the accident, and thereafter, the claim case was filed by the claimant through a next friend. It was further submitted that an undertaking was given by one Trilok Singh to the effect that he would not initiate any legal proceedings, but surprisingly, Police Outpost Focal Point Rajpur, District Patiyala, Punjab registered an FIR on 27.02.2010. Thus, the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident appears doubtful. 5. It is further argued that the claimant remained in hospital for a considerable period, but he approached the Medical Board in the year 2017. The Medical Board issued a disability certificate on 09.10.2017, indicating a 50% intellectual disability of the claimant. She would also argue that there is no explanation on the part of the claimant as to why he approached the Medical Board after seven years. It is further argued that the disability was operative for five years according to the evidence of the Member of the Medical Board. The learned Tribunal committed an error of law in placing reliance upon the said disability 4 certificate while assessing compensation; thus, it is prayed that the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant, would submit that the claimant had sustained serious head injuries, which resulted in his intellectual disability, and he could not pursue his Engineering course. The claimant remained hospitalized for more than three years. The injuries sustained in the accident spoiled his entire life. He would further submit that the intimation with regard to the accident was given by Trilok Singh on 27.02.2010 itself, and this fact is evident from document Exhibit P-3, and an FIR was lodged by the police based on that intimation. The claimant approached the Medical Board in the year 2017, as he remained under the treatment of various doctors since the date of the accident. He would also submit that as the claimant was mentally not competent, the claim petition was filed through his next friend, i.e., his mother. 7. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the claimant at 4,500/- per month and applied a ₹ multiplier of 12, whereas the age of the injured was 27 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has wrongly assessed the loss of earnings for a period of five years only. He would also contend that no compensation has been awarded with regard to the future medical expenses and other conventional heads. Thus, the compensation awarded is inadequate. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Exhibit P-3 shows that the intimation with regard to the accident was given by one Trilok Singh on 27.02.2010 wherein the registration number of the car was disclosed and pursuant to intimation, the Police registered the FIR on 27.2.2020, therefore, the contention of the 5 Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that FIR was lodged two years after the date of the incident cannot be accepted. 10.The medical documents, Ex. P/6 to Ex.P/221 reveals that the claimant had sustained serious head injuries. According to the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board dated 09.10.2017, the injured is suffering from categorization of mental retardation (Mild) to the extent of 50%. The date of the accident was 26.02.2010, but after seven long years, there was no improvement, and the claimant was mentally disabled. 11.Mr. Sharma has informed that the claimant, being a student of Engineering, could not continue his studies due to the head injury sustained in the accident. Exhibit P-221(c) is the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Raigarh, dated 09.10.2017, certifying that the claimant is suffering from Categorization of Mental Retardation (Mild) to the extent of 50%. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Ajgalle, who was a member of the Medical Board, deposed that he was part of the Medical Board, which issued the disability certificate. Ex.P-221. He proved his signature and further stated that the IQ level of the claimant was found to be 50% retarded, which was a result of the head injury sustained by him. In paragraph 5 of his deposition, he clarified that though the period of five years is not mentioned in Ex.P-221, but the disability certificate was valid for 5 years only, and no permanent disability certificate was issued. 12.Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, disability certificate, and the physical and mental condition of the claimant, the arguments advanced by Counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted and the same are hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 6 13.Now coming to the appeal (MAC No.1614/2019) preferred by the claimant for the enhancement of compensation. 14.Admittedly, the claimant was a student of Engineering, and due to a head injury sustained in the accident and consequential disability, he could not continue his studies. At the time of the accident, his age was 27 years. As per the disability certificate (Ex.P/221), the mental disability was assessed to the extent of 50%. The Tribunal’s finding that the disability certificate was issued for a period of only five years is not mentioned in the disability certificate; therefore, evidence given by the Doctor in this regard and the finding of the learned Tribunal are erroneous. 15.The law with respect to the grant of compensation in an injury case is well settled. The injured is entitled to pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages, also known as special damages, are generally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money, whereas non- pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/attending, loss of income, loss of earning capacity, and other material loss, which may require any special treatment or aid to the insured for the rest of his life. The general damages or non- pecuniary loss include the compensation for mental or physical shock, pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, disfiguration, loss of marriage prospects, loss of expected or earning of life, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejection, and unhappiness in future life, etc. 16.In Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that adequate 7 compensation must strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and equally untenable claim of the opposite party, saying that nothing is payable. It is further held that the case of an injured and disabled person is more pitiable, and the feelings of hurt, helplessness, despair, and often destitution endure every day. The support that is needed by a handicapped person comes at an enormous price, not only on the victim but even more so on the injured family and attendants. It is further held that compensation has been granted, keeping in mind that the brilliant career of the claimant has been cut short and there is no possibility of improvement in the claimant’s condition, the compensation will ensure a steady and reasonable income to the claimant for a time when the claimant is unable to earn for himself. 17.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, has observed that the provision of the M.V. Act makes it clear that the award must be just. Para 6, 10, 11, and 13 are reproduced herein below:- 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 8 (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. 11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 9 (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341). 13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood." 2. In the matter of Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692), the claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. The Medical board in the disability certificate mentioned her disability as moderate mental retardation on account of head injury, and disability was assessed to the extent of 75%. In appeal, after considering the lifelong nature of the disability, attendant charges, loss of amenities, etc., the total compensation was awarded at Rs. 50,87,000/. 3. In the matter of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 127, decided on 05.02.2020], the claimant was traveling on a tractor along with her parents on October 18, 2007, which was hit by a truck. She suffered serious injuries resulting in damage to her brain and was left with a very low IQ, besides severe weakness in all her limbs. As per the medical report, her mental age would remain that of a 9-month-old child throughout her life. This means while lying on the bed, she will grow with physical and biological attributes of an adult woman, 10 including menstruation etc, but would remain a 9-month old child in her mind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in that matter awarded a compensation to the tune of 62.27 lakh to her along with interest at ₹ the rate of 7.5 percent per annum on that amount since 2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that ‘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 on 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 on the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth, pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have children who she can love let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Hers is a vegetable existence.’ 4. In the present case, the claimant sustained a head injury in the year 2010, and till date, his mental condition is almost the same. In the year 2017, he was examined by the Medical board and his mental retardation was found to be 50%. He could not pursue his studies, he cannot enjoy the pleasures of life, he would miss the pleasures of marital life, and he would need medical and physical support for his entire life; therefore, it cannot be said that his disability is only 50% and temporary in nature. The learned Tribunal committed an error of law while dealing with the issue of disability qua loss of earning. I consider disability of appellant to the extent of 100%. 5. The Tribunal assessed his income at 4,500/- per month, which ₹ appears to be on the lower side. The learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason while assessing the loss of income of the claimant. The Tribunal should have considered the fact that the claimant was an Engineering student, but he could not pursue his studies. Further, the 11 claimant could have earned a handsome salary upon completion of his degree; therefore, his notional income is assessed at 10,000/- per ₹ month. 6. In the matter of Arun Sondhi v. DTC, (2001) ACC 615, a final year student aged 21 years pursuing a B.A. course from St. Stephen's College, Delhi suffered leg amputation and paralysis in a road accident, which resulted in 100% permanent disability. This Court enhanced compensation from Rs. /- to Rs. 19,16,781/-. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- 4. It goes without saying that Appellant had become crippled and permanently disabled forever. His permanent disability was 100% and he was living his life, whatever its worth, in a wheelchair. It is also the admitted position that he had become paraplegic and had lost control even over his urine and stool. He required assistance of an attendant and medical treatment all the time which involved a recurring expenditure. His plight would not be described in words, nor could his pain and suffering, frustration and disappointments be gathered or gauged. An athlete of yester-year must be ruing his survival which had plunged him in a veritable hell. 5. No money could obviously compensate him for all this and consequently no reasonable compensation could be determined for what he had and must be going through. But all the same the Courts had to undertake the exercise in the discharge of their duty if only to compensate him to the extent payment of money could. As was aptly observed in Ward V James 1965 (1) APPER 56:- "Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his lost year, loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected "years of survival". You can compensate him for loss of earnings during that time and for the cost of nursing treatment and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judges and 12 Jurisdiction have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well neigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part of converted sum." 7. In the matter of Dr. Dattatraya Laxman Shinde v. Nana Raghunath Hire, (2011) 5 Mah LJ 854, a young doctor suffered paraplegia in a motor accident. The paraplegia affected both motor and sensory below thoracic 12 with complete bladder and bowel involvement. Following R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd, (1995) 1 SCC 551, and Raj Kumar (supra), the Bombay High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,85,000/- to Rs.34,50,000/-. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:- 23. In the present case, the Appellant will never be able to practice medicine. He will not be able to continue as a lecturer due to physical disability. Moreover, witness examined by the Appellant admitted that the Appellant is not qualified for the post of a lecturer as he is not holding a post graduate degree. He is incapable of earning any income. No argument is necessary to come to the conclusion that this is a case of 100% loss of earning capacity. In the year 1993, the income of the Appellant as a lecturer was around Rs. 4,200/-. The Appellant had an excellent academic record. It is obvious that the income of the Appellant would have been much higher than Rs. 4,200/-. In a matter like this, exercise of determining the compensation always involves an element of guess work. Looking to the academic record of the Appellant, the income can be reasonably taken at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Multiplier of 18 will have to be applied as on the date of the accident the age of the Appellant was about 25 years. Applying multiplier of 18, the loss of income can be quantified at Rs. 12,96,000/-(Rs. 6000 × 12 × 18). As pointed out earlier, the entire body of the Appellant below waist has become paralytic and he has no control over bladder and bowel movement. He regularly requires catheterisation. As stated by Dr. Joshi, he requires an attendant for 24 hours. Even if the conservative estimate of cost of one attendant is taken at Rs. 200/- per day, the 13 amount will be Rs. 6,000/- per month. Adopting multiplier method, the total amount will come to Rs. 12,96,000/-. 24. As far as claim of expenditure on medical treatment is concerned, it is brought on record that the Appellant was admitted in three different hospitals in Pune and in hospitals at Karad and Satara. The Appellant was also admitted to the institution at Coimbatore for a period of more than two months. Lot of expenditure must have been incurred on travelling and residence of the relatives and friends of the Appellant. The bills evidencing expenditure on medicines, medical treatment, special diet, travelling expenses and residence of the relatives and friends of the Appellant have been produced on record. There are four lists of documents marked as 85/1 to 85/4. Along with the said four lists, voluminous original documents such as bills, vouchers etc. have been produced on record. As expected, none of the documents were admitted by the Respondent No. 3. Perhaps the Respondent No. 3 wanted that large number of witnesses should be examined to prove the documents. In the examination-in-chief, the Appellant has made a reference to all the bills and vouchers. The Tribunal constituted under the said Act is not bound by strict rules of evidence. Therefore, the said bills and vouchers ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in absence of the specific case made out that the documents were fabricated. The total amount reflected from the said bills and vouchers is Rs. 1,54,526/-, which can be rounded off to Rs. 1,55,000/-. Therefore, no separate amount can be awarded by the Tribunal for purchasing equipment such as chair, water bed etc. 25. Evidence of Dr. Joshi indicates that the Appellant will have to continuously remain under medication. Dr. Joshi has stated that such patients who are suffering from paraplegia can suffer many ailments. In paragraph 5 above, the detailed version of Dr. Joshi on the treatment required in future has been reproduced. Dr. Joshi has said "The parapleagic patients are known to go into severe depressions and sometimes result is suicide. Parapleagic are known to have severe rediating pain in both legs and back which is neurological in origin. In addition to this, they suffer from multiple bladder infections which may led to superadded kidney infection and also injuries to both legs due to loss of sensation. Besides which a previously walking about patient 14 sees a futile future and this leads him to suicidal tendency. The neuronal irritation gives rise to severe burning pains in both the legs. All these symptoms stated above were found in the said patient Dr. Shide. For subsiding this pains, tablets like Mazetol are given i.e. antiepileptic drug. The side effect of this medicine is mainly drowziness, grastic irritation, with reflex depression. It also affects appetite with the loss of appetite with decrease in multi-vitamins in the body. Such type of patient is required supplementation of multi- vitamins along with high protein diet. These patients require self catheterisation to remove the urine from the bladder from time to time. This could lead to multiple episodes of infections which have to be treated by higher antibiotics. Also these patients are required to sleep on a water bed or aid-bed to avoid pressure sores over the legs and buttocks. In addition to that the patient requires high protein diet along with multi-vitamin supplementation and enema frequently to regularise the bowel movements. They require passive physiotherapy for both the lower limbs. Usually at night time, tranquillizers are given to help the patient sleep. At times, there is a reflex spasm of the lower limbs in certain patients which usually develops between 4 to 6 years and for which tranquillizers is given. The supplementary food contains high fiber and protein contain." The Tribunal has granted only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for future expenses on treatment. The Appellant will require large amount in future on medicines and equipment like wheelchairs, water bed, catheters etc. Even by a conservative estimate, the said amount cannot be less than Rs. 2,50,000/-. 26. The real problem is in determining non-pecuniary loss because there are no fix standards for assessing the non- pecuniary loss. In a case like this where the victims suffer from paraplegia, the non- pecuniary loss will be basically under the following headings. i. pain and suffering ii. loss of amenities of the life; and iii. loss or destruction for prospects of marriage. As far as first two items are concerned, in cases of a child or young person, who suffers paraplegia, the amount will be much higher than the entitlement of a person who suffers paraplegia at a comparatively late age. Therefore, there is variance in the amounts fixed by this Court as well as the Apex Court in such 15 cases. The Apex Court and this Court in its various decisions has granted amounts ranging from Rs. 1,00,000/- together under the first two headings to a very high amount. In the case of Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (supra), where the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of an order passed by the Consumer Redressal Forum, a very high amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been granted on account of the pain and suffering. That was a case of engineering student aged 20 years, who was a victim of medical negligence. The case before the Apex Court was of a young student who being the victim of paraplegia was confined to wheelchair, and who pursued career in education and ultimately got employed as I.T. engineer at a handsome salary. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shweta Dilip Mehta (supra). This Court dealt with the injury sustained by a minor child aged 11 years, who became paraplegic as a result of accidental injuries. In the facts of the case, this Court granted total amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of pain and suffering. In the present case the compensation cannot be granted on account of loss of amenities of life in view of what is held by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar. In paragraph 15 of the decision, the Apex Court held that: 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may." (emphasis supplied) 27. In the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty (supra), the Apex Court granted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of similar injuries. Ultimately, the amount will depend on facts of each case. It will depend upon the age of the victim, his social status, his marital status, his family background etc. It cannot be overlooked that a young person like the Appellant who suffers from paraplegia, also suffers in mind and in the given 16 case, such a person may become a patient of a psychological disorder. Paraplegia can have devastating effect on the mind of a person like the Appellant, who had a brilliant academic career and who was aiming to pursue post graduate studies in Ayurvedic Medicine. It must be borne in mind that the accident occurred in the year 1993. The Appellant was unmarried at the time of the accident. The Appellant had responsibility of family consisting mother and two younger brothers. The impact of all these factors will have to be considered. The amount granted on this count by the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court is in the range of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Considering the facts of this case, compensation on account of pain and suffering deserves to be fixed at Rs. 3,75,000/-. As the compensation has been granted on account of 100% loss of earning capacity, separate amount cannot be granted on account of loss of amenities of life. In the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeva Shetty (supra), the Apex Court approved compensation of Rs. 75,000/- granted by the Tribunal on account of complete loss of prospects of marriage. The same amount deserves to be granted in this case. 28. With this Judgment a long drawn litigation has come to an end as far as this Court is concerned. Costs of the appeal will have to be quantified at Rs. 20,000/- 29. Thus, the entitlement of the Appellant to compensation is as under: a. Loss of income Rs. 12,96,000/-; b. Cost of attendant Rs. 12,96,000/-; c. Expenditure on medicines, treatment, conveyance Rs. 1,55,000/-; d. Compensation on account of pain and suffering Rs. 3,75,000/-; e. Compensation on account of loss of prospects of the marriage Rs. 75,000/; f. Compensation on account of medical expenditure in future Rs. 2,50,000/-; Thus, the total compensation should be Rs. 34,47,000/-. This figure can be rounded off to Rs. 34,50,000/-. 17 30. After taking into consideration a sum of Rs. 8,85,000/- granted by the Tribunal, the Appellant will be entitled to enhancement of Rs. 25,65,000/-. As far as amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- is concerned, the interest will not be payable from the date of the accident and the interest will be payable from the date of this judgment. Interest on the remaining enhanced amount of Rs. 23,15,000/- will have to be granted at the rate of 7.5% per annum." (Emphasis Supplied) 8. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenses and other conventional heads. It has awarded only ₹1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, and 50,000/- towards special ₹ diet, conveyance, and attendant charges, which appears to be inadequate looking to the mental and physical condition of the appellant. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the claimant, a young engineering student of 27 years, has suffered irreversible consequences on account of the said accident. The medical evidence, particularly the disability certificate and the deposition of the doctor, medical prescriptions, and bills, proves that the claimant is suffering from permanent mental retardation, but these facts have not been considered by the learned Tribunal. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Raj Kumar (supra), Kajal (supra), and Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) has clearly stated that when a person suffers permanent disability, especially when their thinking or mental abilities are affected, the compensation must be fair, reasonable, and in proportion to the pain and hardship faced. The principle of restitutio in integrum means that the compensation should, as far as possible, place the victim in the same position they would have been as if the accident had never happened; thus, the 18 learned Tribunal’s assessment of the income and award under conventional heads appears to be inadequate. 11. On due consideration, the compensation is reassessed as under:- Head of Compensation Calculation / Basis Amount ( ) ₹ Loss of earning capacity Monthly income 10,000 × 12 ₹ months × multiplier 17 20,40,000 ₹ Pain and suffering Lump sum amount considering nature of injuries and permanent disability 5,00,000 ₹ Medical bills The medical bills have been honored by the learned Tribunal 4,14,000 ₹ Attendant charges Enhanced from ₹50,000/- (awarded by learned Tribunal) to 5,00,000/- ₹ 5,00,000 ₹ Conveyance Lump sum towards frequent hospital visits and transportation 5,00,000 ₹ Special diet Lump sum considering prolonged treatment and nutritional needs 5,00,000 ₹ Future medical expenditure Total Compensation Looking to medical condition of the claimant 10,00,000/- 54,54,000 ₹ Less: Amount already granted by the learned Tribunal 8,34,000 ₹ Net Enhanced Compensation Payable ₹46,20,000 19 Considering the notional income at 10,000 per month, applying ₹ the multiplier of 17, and granting appropriate amounts under the heads of pain and suffering, attendant charges, conveyance, and special diet, the total compensation has been reassessed at 54,54,000, ₹ after deducting the sum of 8,34,000/- already awarded by the learned ₹ Tribunal. The enhanced compensation payable to the claimant comes to ₹46,20,000 . The Insurance Company shall pay the enhanced compensation to the claimant within a period of 30 days, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of default till its realization. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim