THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1016 of 2007 (Dated : 27-12-2010) Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager, Secunderabad …Appellant A n d R.Venkata Ramana and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1016 of 2007 JUDGMENT: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal is directed against the award dated 27.7.2006 passed in O.P.No.2729 of 2002 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Chief Judge granted compensation of Rs.18,75,800/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants in O.P.No.2729 of 2002. Claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of claimant No.3-Rajanala Ravikrishna. Claimant No.3 was a student of 1st year Intermediate in the year 2000. On 31.07.2000, at about 6 P.M., he was going on his Sunny moped bearing No.AP 9 R 3675, a Matiz car bearing No.AP 11 G 3629 owned by K.Babu Rao came in high speed driven in rash and negligent manner at Vidya Nagar. It dashed the moped of claimant No.3. As a result, the rider of the moped fell on road and sustained various injuries. He was shifted to Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital for treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Apollo Emergency Hospital at Hyderguda. He underwent various surgeries. Because of the injuries received by him, he became totally bed ridden. A Physiotherapist was employed by his parents to take care of him. He took treatment in Medi City Hospital and NIMS Hospital. A corrective surgery was done on him at NIMS Hospital on 25th August 2001 and he was discharged on 31st August 2001. A maid-servant was appointed to take care of him. He also underwent surgery at K.K.R. Institute. He was the only son to his parents and his parents had lot of plans to provide him good education in Sri Chaitanya College and make him an Engineer. He participated in the Young Scientist Contest and appeared in XXVII Mathematical Olimpiad, 1999 conducted by A.P. Association of Mathematics Teachers Talent search competition and secured merit certificate. Claimant No.1 is an Engineer working with the joint venture company of B.E.L at Bangalore and claimant No.2 is a Lecturer at Bharath Degree College, Nallakunta. Both of them were in a position to provide good education to their son-3rd claimant. Because of the injuries received by claimant No.3 in the accident, all his future has been shattered. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Matiz car bearing No. AP 11 G 3629. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the offending car are liable to pay compensation. 3. The owner remained ex parte and whereas the insurer contested the claim. The insurer took the plea that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive. The car was driven by one Srinivas aged about 17 years and he did not possess a valid driving licence. The insured entrusted the vehicle to a person, who does not possess a valid licence. Thus, the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy, and thereby, insurer absolved of its liability to pay compensation. The claimant No.3 himself was responsible for the accident. The insurer disputed the age and academic career of the claimant No.3 and so also the treatment undertook by him in various hospitals. 4. On behalf of the claimants, 7 witnesses were examined as Pws.1 to 7 and 487 documents were exhibited as Exs.A-1 to A- 487. On behalf of the insurer, no ocular evidence was adduced. A copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. The learned Additional Chief Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Matiz car bearing No. AP 11 G 3629 and that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.18,75,800/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and accordingly, allowed the O.P in part, by judgment dated 27.7.2006. Hence, this appeal by the insurer. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer submits that the learned Additional Chief Judge granted Rs.10 lacs towards pecuniary damages without there being any assessment and therefore, the amount of Rs.10 lacs granted under the head of pecuniary damages is required to be reduced considerably. Learned counsel took us to para 36 of the judgment impugned in the appeal, which reads as hereunder:- “ Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the claim made by the petitioners, the petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs (Rs.ten lakhs only) towards compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and continuing permanent disability and the loss of his future earning power would meet the ends of justice”. The learned counsel would also contend that an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- has been granted to the claimant No.3 towards future medical expenses without there being any basis and therefore, the said amount is required to be disallowed. 7. Evaluation of general damages or non-pecuniary damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, disfigurement and loss of expectation of life has been the subject of fundamental jurisprudential thought in various superior courts in other countries. Separate itemisation under various sub heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, disfigurement is necessary. Itemisation is necessary even while computing pecuniary damages. Pecuniary losses are divided into (i) Special damages or pre-trial pecuniary loss; (ii) Prospective loss of earning profits; and (iii) Costs of future care and other expenses. Non-pecuniary damages are divided into following sub- heads: (i) Pain and suffering ; (ii) Loss of amenities of life; (iii) Loss of expectation of life; (iv) Disfigurement and (v) Disfigurement and inconvenience 8. The following compensation shall be payable in case of disability to the victim arising out of non-fatal accidents: Loss of income, if any, for actual period of disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks. (a) In case of permanent total disablement the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation, or ( b ) In case of permanent partial disablement such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified under Item (a) above. Injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923”. 9. Thus, multiplier method is to be applied in case of injuries as was held by High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs. Rama Singh Goud1 awarded compensation in case of injury for loss of future earnings and applied multiplier method for calculation of the same. The same principle was recognized by the Supreme Court in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh2. 10. The claimant No.3-injured was a student of intermediate as on the date of the accident. The doctors, who treated him, were examined as Pws.2 and 3. Pws.1 and 4 are his parents. It is the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 that the claimant No.3-injured sustained 80% permanent disability. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the fact of percentage of disability. The injured-claimant No.3 has become a living mass because of the impact of the injuries received by him in the accident. The learned Additional Chief Judge after appreciating the evidence of the doctors, who treated the injured, observed as hereunder:- “ It is not in dispute that because of this accident the injured petitioner who appears to be an active and bright student from Exs.A.481 to A.487,he lost all the function of his all four limbs on account of the severe injuries sustained by him. I have myself questioned Pw.2 to find out the graveness of the injuries that are sustained by the injured third petitioner. It has been the evidence of Pw.2 that there is no possibility of the injured petitioner regaining normal power of all the four limbs inspite of any amount of treatment. The patient requires physio therapy throughout his life and assistance of some person for all his activities. Pw.2 has also stated that it is difficult to say even by the time he was giving evidence whether the patient could regain his voice, Pw.2 further stated that the patient requires regular medication of at least Rs.500/- per day for his subsistence. Pw.2 also stated the patient requires some bodies assistance even for taking food and finally Pw.2 stated that the patient is medically described as in a “vegitiative state” and patient is called as “spastic quadric paresys”. 11. The evidence brought on record indicates that the injured- claimant No.3 became a living mass and all his future has been shattered and battered. However, the injured was a non-earning member as on the date of the accident. What amount could be awarded towards future loss of earning or prospective loss of earning could not have been determined on the basis of any legal principle. The compensation for the injuries suffered by a person in a motor vehicle accident can be determined either on the basis of actual damages suffered or upon application of structured formula. Although for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, a legal principle may be found in the Second Schedule thereof. The 2nd Schedule provides that where no income is proved, notional income for the purpose of payment of compensation, who had no income, a sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum would be considered. 12. The learned Additional Chief Judge has not followed any method in assessing the pecuniary damages payable to the claimant No.3-injured. He awarded Rs.10 lacs towards compensation under various heads. The way in which the compensation has been assessed cannot be sustained. No doubt, the injured has lost his future prospects because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. What he would have earned had he not sustained injuries cannot be assessed with certainty. Taking these uncertainties in life, we take the earnings of the injured at Rs.15,000/- per annum. The maximum multiplier as per the decision in Sarala Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation’[1]s case is 18. Thus the total loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.2,70,000/-. The third claimant is also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering apart from actual medical expenses. The trial Court has taken note of all the bills placed on record and awarded Rs.8,75,800/-. We are not inclined to disturb the same. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for Rs.12,45,800/-. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation from Rs.18,75,800/- to Rs.12,45,800/-. Of the compensation, claimant No.3 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The rest of the amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J Dt.27-12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.1016 of 2007 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) (Dated : 27-12-2010) 1 (2009) 14 SCC 61 2 (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 54 [1] 2009 ACJ 1298