Case: Kum Michael Vs. Regional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &amp; Another

day living conditions and the extent to which the aspirations of the appellant came to be demolished by suffering a permanent disability for no fault of his, it becomes the responsibility of the respondent to adequately compensate whatever sufferings undergone by the appellant at that time and immediately after the accident as well as the mental agony that is being suffered by the appellant life long. 11. In this context the reliance placed upon by the Tribunal in the decision reported in R.D. Hattangadi V. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others - AIR 1955 SC 755 was apposite. That was a case where an Advocate of 52 years met with an accident who suffered serious injuries resulting in 100% disability and paraplegia below the waist. The said claimant apart from claiming compensation on other heads made a claim for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life in a sum of Rs.3 lacs each. As against claim of Rs.6 lacs, the High Court granted a sum of Rs.1 lac. This Court considering the claim for non- pecuniary loss stated as under in paragraphs 9 and 17: "9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those is the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:(i) medical attendance;(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;(iii) Other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include(i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life under Sl. No. 17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has claimed lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000 each under the two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs.1,00,000 against the claims of Rs.6,00,000. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an advocate having good practice in different courts and as because of the accident he has been crippled and can move only on wheelchair, the High Court should have allowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000 in respect of claim for pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000 in respect of loss of amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.6,00,000 under the heads Pain and Suffering and Loss of amenities of life." 12. The above-said ratio was subsequently followed in the decision reported in Ashwani Kumar Mishra V. P. Muniam Babu and others - (1999) 4 SCC 22 for enhancing the compensation on account of loss of expectation to life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress suffered by the claimant therein.13. The said decision was also followed in The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. V. Mahadeva Shetty and another - AIR 2003 SC 4172 .14. In B.T. Krishnappa V. D.M. United Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. - AIR 2010 SC 2630 , where one of us (Hon. Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi) was a party, has held in paragraphs 17 and 18 as under: "17. Long expectation of life is connected with earning capacity. If earning capacity is reduced, which is the case in the present situation, that impacts life expectancy as well.18. Therefore, while fixing compensation in cases of injury affecting earning capacity the Court must remember:"... No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." [See R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd & others, (1995) 1 SCC 551 :(AIR 1995) SC 755 : 1955 AIR SCW 243) at page 556, para 10.]" 15. Having bestowed our serious consideration and having noted the various disadvantages suffered by the appellant by virtue of the accident, we are convinced that the appellant is entitled for still higher amount than what has been granted by the Tribunal as well as the High Court on account of pain and sufferings as well as loss of amenities. As held by us earlier, though it will be impossible to make a precise assessment of the pain and suffering of the appellant considering the age at which the appellant met with the accident and the consequent disability and also taking note of the deprivement of better prospects in the life of the appellant due to the physical disability suffered, we determine the compensation in a sum of Rs.4 lacs as claimed by the appellant under the following heads: Towards pain and sufferings and permanent disabilityRs.2,80,000/- Towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant chargesRs.20,000/- Towards loss of amenitiesRs.1,00,000/- TotalRs.4,00,000/-

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]id ratio was subsequently followed in the decision reported in Ashwani Kumar Mishra V. P. Muniam Babu and others(1999) 4 SCC 22  for enhancing the compensation on account of loss of expectation to life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress suffered by the claimant therein.13. The said decision was also followed in The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. V. Mahadeva Shetty and anotherAIR 2003 SC 4172 .14. In B.T. Krishnappa V. D.M. United Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.AIR 2010 SC 2630 , where one of us (Hon. Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi) was a party, has held in paragraphs 17 and 18 asLong expectation of life is connected with earning capacity. If earning capacity is reduced, which is the case in the present situation, that impacts life expectancy as well.18. Therefore, while fixing compensation in cases of injury affecting earning capacity the Court must remember:"... No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." [See R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd & others, (1995) 1 SCC 551 :(AIR 1995) SC 755 : 1955 AIR SCW 243) at page 556, para 10.Having bestowed our serious consideration and having noted the various disadvantages suffered by the appellant by virtue of the accident, we are convinced that the appellant is entitled for still higher amount than what has been granted by the Tribunal as well as the High Court on account of pain and sufferings as well as loss of amenities. As held by us earlier, though it will be impossible to make a precise assessment of the pain and suffering of the appellant considering the age at which the appellant met with the accident and the consequent disability and also taking note of the deprivement of better prospects in the life of the appellant due to the physical disability suffered