1 2025:HHC:24279 2025:HHC:24279 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 310 of 2018 Reserved on: 03.07.2025 Decided on: 25.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Abhijeet Singh Thakur …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr. Pankaj, Advocates, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “The Act”) by the appellant/insurer against the Award dated 27.02.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition RBT No.14-S/2 of 2016, whereby respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Claimant’) has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.67,88,000/- alongwith interest 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24279 @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act by the claimant for compensation on account of injuries and disablement suffered by him in an accident involving motor vehicle car No. HP-08C-1000. The accident had taken place on 14.11.2012 at 7.30 A.M. on Nerwa to Lal Pani Road at place Kalara. The vehicle was being driven by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘owner-cum-driver’). The vehicle went off the road and fell into a deep gorge as a result thereof, serious injuries were suffered by the claimant, which resulted in his 100% disablement. 3. The claimant was a student of 3rd year Civil Engineering course in Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar (Punjab). After disablement, the claimant could not complete his educational course. Due to 100% disability, the claimant has become totally dependent on others as he cannot independently carry out any activity. 4. The cause of accident was attributed to rash and negligent driving of owner-cum-driver, who was none other than the father of the claimant. 3 2025:HHC:24279 5. The claimant got treatment in IGMC, Shimla, Government Medical College Chandigarh, Regional Spinal Injury Centre Mohali and lastly at PGI, Chandigarh. He remained hospitalized for 119 days in total. The claimant has been diagnosed with fracture of D-12 spine, which has caused complete paraplegia. The Medical Board has certified the disability of claimant to be 100%. 6. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.67,88,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. 7. The break-up of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is as under: Sr.No. Heads under which compensation awarded Amount of compensation awarded (in Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 50,000/- 2. Loss of earning and earning capacity. 21,60,000/- 3. Expenditure on medicine. 4,00,000/- 4. Hospitalization charges. 1,19,000/- 5. Transportation charges. 50,000/- 6. Attendant Charges during hospitalization. 1,19,000/- 7. Future attendant charges. 28,80,000/- 8. Shorten expectation of life. 50,000/- 9. Medical expenses in future 9,60,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.67,88,000/- 4 2025:HHC:24279 8. The insurer has assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that it is excessive. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 10. The findings of fact recorded by learned Tribunal with respect to the cause of accident being rash and negligent driving of owner-cum-driver need no interference. In his reply, the owner-cum-driver had taken a specific stand that the accident had taken place on account of some latent defect in the vehicle, whereas, while appearing as a witness (RW-1), he tried to make out a new case by stating that the accident occurred as he tried to save a stray cow on the road. For this discrepancy, learned Tribunal has disbelieved the version of RW-1 and has thus held the accident to have been caused by rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver. 11. Noticeably, except for the above contradictory version of the owner-cum-driver, there was no evidence led by the owner-cum-driver to rebut that the accident was not caused by his rash and negligent driving. The claimant while appearing as a witness had stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver. In cross- 5 2025:HHC:24279 examination, a specific suggestion was put to him that the accident had not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver, but he had categorically denied the same. 12. The vehicle had gone off the road and in absence of any other circumstance, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies and hence, the finding of learned Tribunal is affirmed. 13. The main thrust of the appellant/insurer is on the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. Learned counsel for the insurer would submit that the claimant still was a student and was not earning. He submitted that the assessment of the notional income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month by learned Tribunal is without any basis. According to learned counsel for the insurer, in the situation where the income of victim was not documented, the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act should be taken as fixed criteria. He relied upon the notification issued in the year 2012 in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act and submitted that a sum of Rs.242.22 rounded off to Rs.250/- per day was the daily wage of highly skilled worker in an Engineering Industries, establishments with 6 2025:HHC:24279 manufacturing process and construction or maintenance of roads and buildings etc. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has also erred in applying the multiplier of 44 while assessing the compensation on account of future attendant charges as also the compensation on account of medical expenses in future. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that keeping in view the overall condition in which the claimant has unfortunately landed, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is not adequate and just. 15. As regards the assessment of notional income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified. Though, in the cases where the documented income is not available some amount of guess work is permissible, yet it has to be based on realistic parameters. The wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act can undoubtedly be taken as one of the parameters but not the sole determinative factor. The minimum wages apply to industrial sector. The petitioner was a student of Engineering and had prospects of bright future and career. Taking into view the most conservative approximation an engineering graduate immediately after 7 2025:HHC:24279 passing out will not get a job with salary of less than Rs.10,000/- per month. 16. In Pranay Sethi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that incremental increase on account of future prospects will be available even to those victims who did not have a permanent employment. In such cases, incremental increase @ 40% is made admissible. The claimant will also be entitled to the benefit thereof and thus his monthly salary will be Rs.14,000/-. Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 19 as the date of birth of the claimant was proved to be 8.4.1994 and thus his age being 19 years at the time of accident. The multiplier of 19 has rightly been applied in terms of Sarla Verma vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the future loss of income to the claimant can be calculated at Rs.14000 x 12 x 19 =31,92,000/-. 17. Dr. Ravinder Kumar Mokta has appeared as a witness (PW-5) and has proved disability certificate Ext. PW-5/A. He was one of the Members of the Board which had certified the disability of the claimant. The disability is certified as 100% as the claimant has suffered from paraplegia. While answering the 8 2025:HHC:24279 question in cross-examination, PW-5 Dr. Ravinder Kumar Mokta has specifically denied the suggestions that the claimant would improve in future and will be able to work and take his own care. 18. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- per month towards the attendant charges for future. The assessment of attendant charges per month cannot be said to be unjustified. The claimant has examined PW-3 Bhopal Singh and PW-4 Ramesh Thakur, who have deposed that they have been engaged to attend upon the claimant. From the statement of these witnesses, it can be inferred that they were being paid Rs.6000/- per month for attending upon the claimant. The amount of Rs.6000/- per month for attendance of claimant cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified. However, learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 44 while assessing the future attendant charges. Similarly, learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 44 while assessing the compensation for future medical expenses @ Rs.2000/- per month. 19. The assessment by application of multiplier of 44 cannot be sustained for the reasons that the multiplier is applied 9 2025:HHC:24279 by taking into consideration the various factors for grant of lumpsum compensation. 20. In Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “47. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of Kajal (supra), which read thus: “Attendant charges 22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs. 2500 per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1]. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of “just compensation” within the meaning of the Act. 23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the observation of Lord Reid in Taylor v. O’Connor [Taylor v. 10 2025:HHC:24279 O’Connor,, [1971] A.C. 115 : [1970] 2 WLR 472 (HL)] : (AC p. 128) “Damages to make good the loss of dependency over a period of years must be awarded as a lump sum and that sum is generally calculated by applying a multiplier to the amount of one year's dependency. That is a perfectly good method in the ordinary case but it conceals the fact that there are two quite separate matters involved — the present value of the series of future payments, and the discounting of that present value to allow for the fact that for one reason or another the person receiving the damages might never have enjoyed the whole of the benefit of the dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the ordinary case to deal with these matters separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of experience which is an adequate guide to the selection of the multiplier and any expert evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case where the facts are special I think that these matters must have separate consideration if even rough justice is to be done and expert evidence may be valuable or even almost essential. The special factor in the present case is the incidence of income tax and, it may be, surtax.” 24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases like MCD v. Subhagwanti [MCD v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750 : 1966 ACJ 57], U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362], Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande [Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 276 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 178]. This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.” [emphasis supplied] 21. Though, the amount of Rs.6000/- per month on account of attendant charges has been found to be justified, the 11 2025:HHC:24279 amount of Rs.2000/- per month for medication appears to be quite less. The evidence on record reveals that the claimant will have to remain bed-ridden. In such patients, common infections on account of low immunity are well known. The rising price index cannot be ignored. Keeping in view the future uncertainties vis-à-vis the claimant and the ever-rising price index, in my considered view Rs.4000/- per month on account of future medical charges will be reasonable. 22. Since, the multiplier of more than 19 cannot be allowed for assessing the compensation for future medical charges, the attendant charges shall also be assessed by applying the multiplier of 19 and under these two heads, the amount shall be 6000x12x19 = Rs.13,68,000/- and 4000x12x19 = Rs.9,12,000/-. 23. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- in lumpsum for expenditure incurred by the claimant on medicines. Thus, the figure has been assessed by the learned Tribunal on assumptions as the actual bills were not produced. Learned Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the hospitalization of the claimant was for 119 days in total. He had remained admitted in IGMC Shimla, Government Medical College 12 2025:HHC:24279 Chandigarh, Regional Spinal Injury Centre Mohali and PGI, Chandigarh. For almost two years, the intermittent hospitalization of the claimant had continued. Even otherwise, the fact that the claimant requires regular medication cannot be ignored, thus the amount so assessed is just and reasonable. The compensation assessed by learned Tribunal under heads Transportation, attendant charges during hospitalization also appear to be justified. 24. On account of pain and suffering and expectation of life, learned Tribunal has awarded to the claimant Rs.50,000/- each. This amount in my view is negligible keeping in view the health condition and future prospects of the claimant. PW-5 Dr. Ravinder Kumar Mokta had categorically deposed that the claimant had suffered fracture of D-12 vertebrae of spine with complete paraplegia. He had 100% permanent disability which will continue throughout his life. He has further stated that there are no chances of improvement in the condition of claimant and he will not be able to be a normal human being in future. 25. The claimant, who was a brilliant student till 14.11.2012 has been rendered 100% disabled on account of 13 2025:HHC:24279 paraplegia. It can be foreseen that in such state the claimant will have to spend his rest of life by lying on cot or sitting on a chair. His chances of a brilliant career, marriage and all other enjoyment of life have been snatched. 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 losses. 26. 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 abovementioned 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 14 2025:HHC:24279 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.” 27. 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. 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.” 15 2025:HHC:24279 28. 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. 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. 16 2025:HHC:24279 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 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 17 2025:HHC:24279 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. 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. 18 2025:HHC:24279 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. 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/-. 19 2025:HHC:24279 29. In light of above exposition of law and keeping in view its applicability to the facts of the case an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in lumpsum will be a just and adequate compensation to the claimant under the heads pain and suffering and loss of expectancy at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- under each head. 30. In Sanobanu Nazirbhai vs Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (2013) 16 SCC 719, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal and Court even at appellate stage can award the just, fair and adequate compensation to fulfill the intent of the legislation. It has been elaborated as under: “19. The amount of Rs.16,96,000/- as calculated above, under the various heads of losses, should be awarded in favour of appellants-claimants, though there is no specific mention regarding enhancing of compensation as in the appeal it has been basically requested by the appellants to set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the respondent. We must follow the legal principles of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors.[7] at para 7, wherein with respect to the provisions of the M.V. Act, this Court has observed as under: “There is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is — it should be “just” 20 2025:HHC:24279 compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.” In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we are of the view that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the compensation as mentioned under the various heads in the table as provided above in this judgment even though certain claims were not preferred by them as we are of the view that they are legally and legitimately entitled for the said claims. Accordingly, we award the compensation, more than what was claimed by them as it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal and the appellate court to award just and reasonable compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased to mitigate their hardship and agony as held by this Court in a catena of cases. Therefore, this Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellants as they filed application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid relevant facts and legal evidence on record and in the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent, we determine just and reasonable compensation by awarding a total sum of Rs. 16,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date payment is made to the appellants.” 31. Thus, the recalculation of compensation payable to the claimant can be made as under: Sr.No. Heads under which compensation awarded Amount of compensation awarded by this Court (in Rs.) 1. Pain and suffering 10,00,000/- 21 2025:HHC:24279 2. Loss of earning and earning capacity. 31,92,000/- 3. Expenditure on medicine. 4,00,000/- 4. Hospitalization charges. 1,19,000/- 5. Transportation charges. 50,000/- 6. Attendant Charges during hospitalization. 1,19,000/- 7. Future attendant charges. 13,68,000/- 8. Shorten expectation of life. 10,00,000/- 9. Medical expenses in future 9,12,000/- Total: 81,60,000/- 32. In addition, the interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal shall remain the same. 33. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 27.02.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Shimla, H.P. in MAC Petition RBT No.14-S/2 of 2016, is modified to above extent. 34. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 25th July 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge