( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 607 OF 2002 Datta s/o Subhash Rasal Since deceased, by L.Rs. 1. Subhash s/o Bhagwan Rasal, R/o Ter, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Sow. Rukmini w/o Subhash Rasal, R/o as above. APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Division Office, Solapur, Hutatma Smruti Mandir Complex, Park Chowk, Solapur. 2. M/s Ajwani Constructions P. Ltd., through its Managing Director, registered office at 310, Arora Towers, 9, Moledina Road Camp, Pune-1. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.R. Kale, advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.M. Ambhore, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th December, 2009] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Originally, this appeal was preferred by injured claimant for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad, in claim petition (M.A.C.P. No. 40/1998). 2. Original claimant/appellant Datta died during pendency of this appeal and, therefore, names of his parents are substituted as his legal representatives. Thus, it may be noticed that the original claim which was on account of injuries caused to the claimant is now converted into a claim for compensation on account of his death. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased claimant (Datta) was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the fateful day. He was riding on a bicycle at the relevant time. He was studying in 9th standard. His case before the Tribunal was that while cautiously driving the bicycle, when he was proceeding ( 3 ) from near milestone No. 1 on Gat-Pati Road, a dumper vehicle, bearing registration No. MH-12/6180 owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 1 came from wrong side and knocked him. He was thrown on the hard surface. He sustained multiple injuries to his head, neck, right hand, shoulder and other parts of the body. The accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the dumper vehicle. He was shifted to Civil Hospital, Osmanabad for medical treatment. He was required to take further medical treatment in Joy Hospital at Bombay and also in Hinduja Hospital since 09-08-1997 till 14-08-1997. He was required to take further treatment at Wadia hospital till 08-09-1997. He suffered 80% permanent disability due to the injuries received by him. He became paraplegic. He was unable to move out of the bed. He could not attend the call of nature on his own. He always required assistance to undertake the daily pursuits of the life. He was a brilliant student and lost educational career. Considering the amount of medical expenditure, the future expenditure required for salary of the attendant, the charges required for ( 4 ) special care of injured Datta and relevant factors, compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- was sought on his behalf by his father. 4. The respondents resisted the claim alleging that the accident was result of negligence on part of Datta. They contended that the claim was disproportionate to the expenses incurred for the medical treatment and future expenditure that would be required for attendance of deceased Datta. It was denied that deceased Datta became paraplegic. The Insurance Company further agitated usual defences like absence of driving license with the driver of the dumper vehicle and lack of its legal liability. 5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and proceeded with the trial. The claimant adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his contentions. The Tribunal held that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the dumper vehicle, bearing registration No. MH-12/6180. The Tribunal further held that the owner and insurer of the vehicle were jointly ( 5 ) and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal determined amount of Rs. 1,75,447/- as the compensation to which the deceased claimant was entitled. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal was preferred on his behalf. 6. It may be noticed that this appeal was filed in 2002 and after about a couple of years, claimant Datta demised. Therefore, his parents were allowed to continue the appeal on his behalf. 7. The only material question involved in this appeal is : “Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate, insufficient and is liable to be enhanced ? If yes, to what extent ?” 8. There cannot be duality of opinion that where an adolescent had lost future prospects of the life due to the vehicular accident, the compensation merely in terms of money required for medical expenditure will not ( 6 ) be regarded as sufficient. He will also be entitled to receive non-pecuniary damages. His sufferance, his physical and mental ordeal and dependency on others are certain factors to be counted for while awarding the compensation. The Apex Court time and again held that such a young person, who is paralyzed for life will be entitled to receive adequate compensation in order to ensure that few requirement of his probable expenditure towards attendance, medicines and treatment, etc. will be taken care of. In “Nagesha v. M.S. Krishna and another” (1997) 8 SCC 349, the Apex Court held that the adequate compensation is required to be awarded having regard to the nature of injuries, sufferance, medical expenditure, age of the injured at the time of accident, so on and so forth. 9. Mr. Kale, holding for Mr. Natu, also invited my attention to certain observations in “Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh & others” (Civil Appeal No. 4795/2009), decided by the Apex Court. As stated before, there cannot be any two opinion regarding the ( 7 ) legal position that adequate compensation in such cases is required to be awarded. 10. One cannot be, however, oblivious to the subsequent intervening developments. The injured – Datta is no more. With him, the future needs of attendance, the future pains which he would have suffered and the future treatment he was required to undertake, had also vanished. Thus, the sustainable claim is only in respect of the compensation which his parents are entitled to. Both the parents are labours. They are middle aged persons. The deceased was hardly 16/17 years old and was non-earning member of the family. The testimony of PW1 Subhash does not show anything about brilliant academic record of deceased Datta. He vaguely stated that Datta was a clever boy. No progress card or other material record was produced in order to infer his bright future career and to hold that future earning hand of the family was lost. It is stated by PW Subhash that he has yet another son by name Prajyot, whose age given is about 15 years. Considering the material placed on record, it is ( 8 ) explicit that due to intervening developments, one is not required to consider the futuristic needs of the claimant. Except and save for the relevant period, between the accident and his death, the relevant period of about seven years from date of the accident and date of death of claimant Datta could have been duly covered by the amounts awarded. The present appellants cannot be treated as dependents of deceased Datta. They have lost consortium due to his death. Under the circumstances, I deem it proper to enhance the compensation only to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- inclusive of the compensation towards loss of consortium and also the probable loss caused to the appellants from the date of filing of the appeal till the death of Datta. No more enhancement is warranted under the present circumstances. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified by allowing more amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants i.e. parents of deceased Datta as compensation on account of loss of consortium, expenditure required for the funeral, etc. ( 9 ) No costs. 12. In view of disposal of the first appeal, civil application No. 9610/2003 does not survive and hence, stands disposed of accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/fa607-02