HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CIMA No. 149/2006 Cross Appeal No. 1/2007 Date of Decision: 22.12.2008 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amarjit Singh & ors . Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Amarjit Singh & ors . Coram: Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, Judge. Appearing counsel: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. A. S. Azad, Advocate. i) Whether to be reported in Press/Journal/Media : Yes ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes Oriental Insurance Company Limited has questioned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu’s award, made in Claim petition no. 719/Claims, for an amount of Rs. 21,83,107/- in favour of Amarjit Singh, respondent- claimant, who while travelling in Bus bearing registration no. JKQ-8827 from Jammu to Poonch had received grievous injuries rendering him 100% permanently disabled, when the vehicle had turned turtle near Mihari Kalakote because of the 2 rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Noor Mohd. respondent. Amarjit Singh, respondent-claimant, too has filed his cross appeal No. 1/2007 saying that the amount awarded to him, for the injuries he had received, and the disablement which had rendered him paraplegic, was not “just compensation” which he is entitled to under law. Insurance Company’s learned counsel submits that the Tribunal had erred in bifurcating assessment of claimant’s future loss of income under two heads i.e. one during the trial, and the other for rest of his life. This, according to the learned counsel does not go in line with the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India indicating the manner in which compensation for loss of income is required to be assessed. His further submission is that while assessing compensation payable for future loss of income, the Tribunal was not right in omitting to deduct the amount which the claimant would have spent on himself, had he not been disabled. Interest awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant on the amount required for keeping one attendant too, according to the learned counsel, was untenable. 3 Claimant’s counsel, on the other hand, submitted that deductions, on account of personal expenditure of the injured, from the amount assessed as loss of income, are impermissible, because the injured, despite being disabled, would still have to spend for his sustenance, the amount which he would have even otherwise spent, had he not suffered the disablement. Learned counsel further urges that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate which needs to be enhanced so that he gets just compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Appellant’s learned counsel has not disputed that the injuries received by Amarjit Singh-claimant had resulted in Traumatic Quadriplegia which would render him 100% disabled throughout his life. All that he disputes is the manner in which the Tribunal had assessed compensation, and the interest which it had allowed on the amount which the claimant would require for engaging one attendant. Amount awarded to the claimant under rest of the heads has, however, not been disputed by appellant’s learned counsel. 4 Claimant’s counsel, on the other hand, seeks enhancement of compensation, saying that the compensation awarded to the respondent-claimant is not “just compens- ation” in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first question that, therefore, falls for consideration is as to whether or not the amount which would have been spent by an injured on himself for his sustenance and pleasure, had he not met with the accident, is required to be deducted, while assessing his future loss of income? The question posed, needs to be answered, keeping in view the concept of “just compensation”, as contemplated by Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. “Just compensation” contemplated to be paid to an injured, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, would be such amount of compensation which may be sufficient to enable him to enjoy all such benefits, monetary and others, which he would have, otherwise got, had he not been disabled because of the injuries he had received in the automobile accident. In other words, the monetary component to be paid, by way of compensation, to an injured should be such amount with which he may be able to 5 discharge his obligations towards his dependents besides managing his own affairs. Just compensation would, therefore, be such amount, which he would have to spend on himself for his personal sustenance, and pleasure, which he may be able to enjoy, despite his disablement, and on his dependents, if there be any. For assessment of damages to compensate loss of one’s earnings, regard needs to be had to many imponderables i.e. the life expectancy and the dependents, the amount which an injured would have contributed to the dependents, the chances that he may not have lived or his dependants might not live upto the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the injured might have got better avenues of income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. The method employed to arrive at the amount of compensation which may be in line with the concept of just compensation in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been indicated in various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in terms whereof the net income of the injured available to support himself and his dependants is 6 required to be ascertained before selecting appropriate multiplier keeping in view the one suggested in the Second Schedule issued under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act so that the amount so calculated, in terms of the Multiplier Method, which has come to be accepted as a fair method of determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, enables him to take care of himself and his dependants in the same manner he would have done it, had he not received injuries. While assessing compensation on account of loss of future earnings of an injured, it is thus required to be kept in mind that an injured, howsoever physically disabled he may be, may not injure his mind as such, And, so long as his mind functions, the injured would need sustenance to maintain his body, mind and soul. For survival and nourishment of all these three i.e. the physical body, the mental sheath and the soul, the injured would require money to sustain his body and mind. He may thus need money for sustaining his physical body as also to fulfill the desires which may arise in his mind. This is so because the mind of a disabled person too may yearn for enjoyment, and whatever enjoyment may be possible with the 7 disabled condition of his body, he would like to do that, And for that he needs to be appropriately compensated. No deductions may, therefore, be permissible from out of the amount assessed as loss of his future income because despite being disabled he will continue to spend for the sustenance and development of his body, mind and soul. I do not see any merit in appellant’s counsel’s submissions that the Tribunal had erred in bifurcating future loss of income by determining compensation for loss of income which had accrued during the pendency of the claim petition and the other which would accrue in future. This is so because the Tribunal has assessed future loss of income strictly in accordance with the law laid-down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported as (1995) 1 SCC 551. Even otherwise, I do not see any fault in the findings of the Tribunal because it has not allowed any interest for loss of future income assessed at Rs.8,16,000/-. I, however, find that the Tribunal has erred in not following the law laid down in R.D.Hattangadi’s case (supra) in allowing interest on Rs.4,08,000/- which had been allowed 8 by the Tribunal to meet the expenses of the attendant which the claimant had to spend in the years to come. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I am of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent-claimant is just compensation for the injuries he had received and the disablement which has been caused to him because of the injuries. No case for raising the quantum of compensation as projected by the respondent-claimant in his cross appeal, has been made out on the basis of the evidence which the claimant had led in the case. Barring the modification in the award regarding non- payment of interest on Rs.4,08,000/-, the award made by the Tribunal may not warrant interference. For all what has been said above, the award of the Tribunal is, accordingly, upheld with the modification that no interest would be payable on Rs.4,08,000/- against respondents’ claim of engaging an attendant. CIMA No. 149/2006 and Cross Appeal No. 1/2007 are, accordingly, disposed of. 9 Registrar Judicial shall release the amount deposited by the appellants in this Court in favour of the respondent- claimant in terms of this judgment, along with interest accrued thereon minus the amount already received by the claimant. ( J. P. Singh ) Judge Jammu 22.12.2008 Tilak, Secy.