Case: Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways

is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.” 13. Certain parallel developments will now have to be taken note of. In Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another [(2009) 13 SCC 422] , a two Judge Bench of this Court while considering the following questions took the view that the issue(s) needed resolution by a larger Bench “(1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act should be scrupulously applied in all the cases?(2) Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future prospects?” 14. Answering the above reference a three Judge Bench of this Court in Reshma Kumari and Ors. vs. Madan Mohan and Anr. [(2013) 9 SCC 65 (para 36)] reiterated the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) to the effect that in respect of a person who was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments or who was self-employed the actual income at the time of death should be taken into account for determining the loss of income unless there are extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. Though the expression “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances” is not capable of any precise definition, in Shakti Devi vs. New India Insurance Company Limited and Another [(2010) 14 SCC 575] there is a practical application of the aforesaid principle. The near certainty of the regular employment of the deceased in a government department following the retirement of his father was held to be a valid ground to compute the loss of income by taking into account the possible future earnings. The said loss of income, accordingly, was quantified at double the amount that the deceased was earning at the time of his death. 15. Undoubtedly, the same principle will apply for determination of loss of income on account of an accident resulting in the total disability of the victim as in the present case. Therefore, taking into account the age of the claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had a steady income, as evidenced by the income-tax returns, we are of the view that an addition of 50% to the income that the claimant was earning at the time of the accident would be justified. 16. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, as held in Sarla Verma (supra) (para 42) or as prescribed under the Second Schedule to the Act, the correct multiplier in the present case cannot be 15 as held by the High Court. We are of the view that the adoption of the multiplier of 17 would be appropriate. Accordingly, taking into account the addition to the income and the higher multiplier the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant under the head “loss of income” is Rs. 10,53,150/- (Rs. 41300 + Rs. 20650= Rs. 61,950 x 17). 17. In so far as the medical expenses is concerned as the awarded amount of Rs.1,38,552/- has been found payable on the basis of the bills/vouchers etc. brought on record by the claimant we will have no occasion to cause any alteration of the amount of compensation payable under the head “medical expenses”. Accordingly, the finding of the High Court in this regard is maintained. 18. This will bring us to the grievance of the appellant-claimant with regard to award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head “future treatment” and “pain and suffering”. In view of the decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another [(2011) 1 SCC 343] and Sanjay Batham vs. Munnalal Parihar and Others [(2011) 10 SCC 665] there can be no manner of doubt that the above two heads of compensation are distinct and different and cannot be clubbed together. We will, therefore, have to severe the two heads which have been clubbed together by the High Court.In so far as “future treatment” is concerned we have no doubt that the claimant will be required to take treatment from time to time even to maintain the present condition of his health. In fact, the claimant in his deposition has stated that he is undergoing treatment at the Apollo Hospital at Delhi. Though it is not beyond our powers to award compensation beyond what has been claimed [Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others [(2003) 2 SCC 274] ], in the facts of the present case we are of the view that the grant of full compensation, as claimed in the claim petition i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- under the head “future treatment”, would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, order accordingly.19. The claimant had claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under the head “pain and suffering and mental agony”. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant which had left him paralyzed for life and the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain throughout his life, we are of the view that the claimant should be awarded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of “pain and suffering”. We must, however, acknowledge that monetary compensation for pain and suffering is at best a palliative, the correct dose of which, in the last analysis, will have to be determined on a case to case basis. 20. In the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the claimant has prayed for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- being the cost of attendant from the date of accident till he remains alive. The claimant in his deposition had stated that “he needs one person to be with him all the time”. The aforesaid statement of the claimant is duly supported by the evidence of PW-1 who has described the medical condition of the claimant in detail. From the aforesaid materials, we are satisfied that the claim made on this count is justified and the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the claimant under the aforesaid head should be awarded in full. We order accordingly.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]No fault, therefore, can be found in the order of the High Court which proceeds on the basis that the annual income of the claimant at the time of the accident was Rs.41,300/-.into account the age of the claimant (25 years) and the fact that he had a steady income, as evidenced by the income-tax returns, we are of the view that an addition of 50% to the income that the claimant was earning at the time of the accident would be justified.We are of the view that the adoption of the multiplier of 17 would be appropriate. Accordingly, taking into account the addition to the income and the higher multiplier the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant under the headis Rs. 10,53,150/- (Rs. 41300 + Rs. 20650= Rs. 61,950 x 17).Accordingly, the finding of the High Court in this regard iswill, therefore, have to severe the two heads which have been clubbed together by the High Court.In so far asis concerned we have no doubt that the claimant will be required to take treatment from time to time even to maintain the present condition of his health. In fact, the claimant in his deposition has stated that he is undergoing treatment at the Apollo Hospital at Delhi. Though it is not beyond our powers to award compensation beyond what has been claimed [Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others [(2003) 2 SCC 274] ], in the facts of the present case we are of the view that the grant of full compensation, as claimed in the claim petition i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- under the head, would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, order accordingly.19. The claimant had claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- under the headng and mentalConsidering the injuries sustained by the claimant which had left him paralyzed for life and the evidence of PW-1 to the effect that the claimant is likely to suffer considerable pain throughout his life, we are of the view that the claimant should be awarded a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account ofWe must, however, acknowledge that monetary compensation forng is at best a palliative, the correct dose of which, in the last analysis, will have to be determined on a case to casethe aforesaid materials, we are satisfied that the claim made on this count is justified and the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the claimant under the aforesaid head should be awarded in full. We order