Ramjeet Rathaur v. Bijender Singh & Ors.

16. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the difficulties of the appellant in leading a daily life by offering unreasonable compensation under the heads of loss of amenities and conveyance.

17. It is submitted to the effect that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the impact of the injuries sustained by the appellant with respect to the expenses for special diet, future assistance and disfigurement, thereby granting minimal compensation under these heads.

18. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for the loss of life expectancy and future medical expenses despite the deposition of witnesses explicitly stating the same.

19. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that instant appeal may be allowed and impugned order be modified qua the compensation amount.

20. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation by considering 42% functional disability, as reliance was placed on the testimony of the witnesses that the appellant’s upper right limb is unaffected and that he can perform activities while sitting.

21. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal was correct in taking the minimum wages of the unskilled worker as appellant’s income, since no proof was placed on record reflecting that he was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month and that the loss of income and future income have been computed accurately.

22. It is submitted to the effect that the appellant is not liable for additional compensation for future prospects, future medical expenses and loss of life expectancy as no proof of the same was placed on record.

23. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has accurately computed the compensation for medical expenses as the medical records and the testimony of R3W[1] are in consonance with each other.

24. It is further submitted that the enhancement sought for non-pecuniary expenses such as pain & suffering, loss of amenities, conveyance, special diet, attendant’s charges, disfigurement, mental & physical shock etc. is not required, as the learned Tribunal had taken a generous route in awarding the compensation and therefore, enhancement for the same will make it unreasonable.

25. In view of the aforementioned submissions, it is submitted that the instant appeal being devoid of any merit may be dismissed.

26. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

27. The instant appeal is admitted.

28. It is the case of the appellant that the gravity of the injuries and the situational difficulties which come along with it were not taken into account by the learned Tribunal while granting compensation and the same requires to be enhanced. Hence, it has been prayed to enhance/ modify the impugned order.

29. In rival submissions, it has been contended that the appellant is not entitled to enhancement of the compensation as the same has been reasonably awarded by the learned Tribunal and that the instant appeal be dismissed.

30. Therefore, the question for adjudication before this Court is whether the learned Tribunal erred in awarding appropriate compensation to the appellant vide impugned order dated 10th June, 2020.

31. Before going into the merits of the case, it is apposite for this Court to peruse the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in its impugned order and the operative portion of the same is reproduced hereunder –

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                                Sl.    Pecuniary loss:-                                    Quantum           │
│                                no.                                                                          │
│                                    1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : As per deposition of Rs. 12,00,230/-   │
│                                       R3W1 (Billing Clerk, Indraprasth Hospital)                            │
│ Signature Not Verified                                                                                      │
│ KUMAR BABBAR             MAC.APP. 295/2021                                                                  │
│ Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN                                                                                 │
│                                                                                            Page 6 of 29     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

20. Since there is no statutory defence, therefore, the compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 21.01.2016 till realization (excluding interest from 08.11.2016 to 28.07.2017) which comes out Rs. 29,04,442/- + Rs. 9,58,227/- = Rs. 38,62,669/-.”

32. While addressing the issue of compensation, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the testimonies of the witnesses i.e., PW-1, PW-2, R3W[1] and R3W[2] in determining the intensity of the injuries suffered by the appellant as well as the disability certificate on record, thereby ascertaining the functional disability as 42%. Considering the nature of injuries, medical records, disability report etc. along with the situational difficulties faced by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation amounting to Rs. 29,04,442/-.

33. In light of the same, this Court finds it pertinent to address the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal by firstly addressing the pecuniary expenses and then the non-pecuniary expenses.

34. In order to assess whether the compensation awarded under various heads in case of grievous injury is reasonably assessed, this Court finds it imperative to refer to the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had broadly listed out various heads under which compensation needs to be awarded for normal as well as serious injuries. Moreover, it addressed the multiple factors to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation under each of those heads. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows – “General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.

5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life

(shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of nonpecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) --involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability

6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.

7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.

8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0777/2010: 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0657/2010: 2010 (8) SCALE 567.

9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.

10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.”

35. Upon perusal of the aforesaid case, the assessment of pecuniary damages is usually based on the evidence placed on record as it includes reimbursement of the amount spent and medical records of the treatment, whereas the assessment of non-pecuniary damages is very subjective and depends on the nature of injuries and surrounding circumstances of the appeal.

36. Therefore, the factors which play a primary role in determining pecuniary expenses are the medical expenses, income of the appellant and extent of disability suffered by him.

37. As per the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), while determining the medical expenses incurred by the appellant, the available medical records need to be taken into consideration for reimbursing the appellant for the medical expenses.

38. In the examination of the appellant/ PW-1, it was stated that he has been hospitalized for a prolonged period of time i.e., from 13th November, 2015 to 10th May, 2016, wherein the appellant underwent multiple surgeries as well as tests conducted by the concerned doctors for the treatment of the grievous injuries. Moreover, it was also testified that he was admitted to the hospital for further treatment on 2nd June, 2017 for three days; on 30th July, 2017 for ten days; on 1st September, 2017 for three days; on 9th November, 2017 for four days and on 22nd December, 2017 for four days. He further testified that he has spent more than Rs. 35,00,000/- for his treatment, special diet and conveyance.

39. However, during his cross-examination, he deposed that a bill of Rs. 43,20,384/- has been raised, out of which the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,19,300/- and the remaining was paid by the government. He further testified that he is the bearer of the EWS card and that a bill of Rs. 74,216.30/- was raised out of which Rs. 63,716/- was not charged by the hospital due to the EWS card, and that he paid Rs. 10,000/- for the said bill.

40. Further, R3W[1], who is a billing clerk at the Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, in his examination testified that during the period of 29th October, 2015 to 13th November, 2015, a bill of Rs. 16,74,523.02 was raised, out of which the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 9,92,000/- and from 13th November, May, 2017, a bill of Rs. 43,20,384.04 was raised, out of which the appellant paid Rs. 2,19,300/-. The said bills were placed on record.

41. While awarding medical expenses, the learned Tribunal solely relied upon the testimony of R3W[1] and awarded Rs. 12,11,230/-.

42. It is observed by this Court that a vast set of medical bills and medical documents are placed on record. Upon perusal of the same as well as the testimonies of PW[1] and R3W[1], this Court finds that the sole testimony of R3W[1] does not shed enough light on the exact amount spent on the medical treatment. However, the same is supported by bills on record.

43. Therefore, for computing the medical expenses, this Court has relied upon the testimony of R3W[1], PW-1 and additional medical bills on record, amounting to Rs. 13,45,233/-. The break-up of the same is given hereunder – DETAILS AMOUNT Bill No. DEL-ICR-30651 dated 13th November, 2015 [from 29th October, 2015 to 13th November, 2015] Rs. 9,92,000/- Bill No. DEL-IFR-868 dated 10th May, 2017 [from 13th November, May, 2017] Rs. 2,19,300/- Miscellaneous Bills from 16th May, 2017 to 26th May, 2018 Rs. 94,224/- Additional Miscellaneous Bills Rs. 39,710/- Total Rs. 13,45,234/-

44. In light of the same, this Court is of the opinion that Rs. 13,45,234/shall be granted to the appellant for medical expenses by placing reliance on the testimony of R3W[1] as well as the additional medical expenses on record.

45. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), the Court has mentioned that the loss of future medical expenses can be given only when it is believed that the claimant is in need of future medical treatments.

46. In the testimony of Dr. Sangai Singh, Senior Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre/ PW-2, it was stated that the appellant is on Foley’s catheter, which needs to be changed every 15 days in order to prevent infection and that he shall be needing it for the rest of his life. It is further testified that while changing the Foley’s catheter, which is used only for urine, the assistance of the doctors is required.

47. The factual reality of the appellant has been explained by PW-2 in her deposition, where the appellant will need medical assistance and attention of the doctors for the future course of life as the Foley’s catheter is a permanent requirement and that it needs to be changed every 15 days to avoid infection. Considering the possibilities of future medical difficulties as well as future medical treatments, based on the testimony of PW-2, this Court grants a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant for the future medical expenses.

48. In his testimony, the PW-1 deposed that he was running a dhaba at Side No. 1561, Shastri Market Jangpura Bhogal, New Delhi, wherein he was earing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the appellant relied on the Trade License issued by the Department of Food Safety.

49. The income of the appellant cannot be ascertained as the same is not reflected in the Trade License document, and therefore, in absence of any proof of income, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal was correct in taking the minimum wages of unskilled labor while determining the appellant’s income, which is Rs. 9,178/- per month at the time of the accident.

50. While assessing the loss of income during the treatment, the compensation is based on the income lost during the treatment underwent by the appellant. The learned Tribunal was generous in taking the period of treatment as fifty-four months, from the date of the accident to the date of the impugned order passed, as the appellant was still getting medical treatment at the time of passing of the impugned order.

51. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal was correct in taking the period of loss of income as fifty-four months and therefore, the grant of Rs. 4,95,612/- by the learned Tribunal is approved by this Court.

52. However, to ascertain the loss of future income, it is imperative for this Court to firstly determine the functional disability sustained by the appellant.

53. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated in various cases, most prominent being Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar (supra), and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande and Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351, wherein emphasis has been laid on the adverse impact of the permanent disability on claimant’s earning capacity for computing the compensation for loss of future income.

54. As per the testimony of PW-2, the disability certificate has been prepared by the Board of Assessment of Disability of AIIMS, Delhi, in which he was a member. The disability certificate specifies that the appellant has suffered 84% permanent impairment in his right lower limb and genitourinary system of his body. The testimony of PW-2 also indicates the multiple injuries incurred by the appellant, affecting his daily activities, thereby requiring constant assistance in doing the same. In his cross examination, the PW-2 testified that the upper limb of the right leg is unaffected and that he is capable of doing any work provided that he is sitting.

55. It is pertinent to note that in the testimony of PW-1, the appellant stated that he has studied only till 5th standard, thereby indicating that no formal education has been obtained by him. Moreover, the appellant is an unskilled worker. Given that the appellant has not obtained a formal education and is an unskilled worker, who now requires a wheelchair for mobility and frequent hospital visits for his condition, affecting his future earning capacity, this Court finds that the 42% functional disability taken by the learned Tribunal is incorrect, as the same cannot justify the actual circumstantial difficulties faced by the appellant in leading his daily life.

56. Therefore, in light of the aforementioned cases, this Court is of the opinion the 84% permanent impairment in his right lower limb and genitourinary system has an impact on the appellant’s earning capacity, which has a similar effect on his entire bodily disability. Therefore, placing reliance on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and the disability certificate, 84% functional disability needs to be taken into consideration for determining the loss of future income as the chances of are bleak.

57. In light of this, the loss of future income, which is calculated based on the income earned per annum, age as well as the functional disability sustained by the appellant, is now calculated as follows – Income earned per annum Rs. 9,178/- x 12 months = Rs. 1,10,136 Multiplier (age of 44 at the time of accident) Functional disability incurred 84% Total loss of future income Rs. 12,95,199/-

58. Based on the aforementioned computation, this Court enhances the compensation awarded under the head of loss of future incomes to Rs. 12,95,199/- to be granted to the appellant.

59. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation for future prospects despite the 84% permanent impairment in the right lower limb and genitourinary system and undergoing vigorous surgeries, ultimately being restricted to wheelchair for mobility.

60. It is important to mention that as per the case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2022 INSC 1204, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that it is a well settled law that in cases of permanent disability, the claimant is entitled to both the loss of future income as well as future prospects, indicating that the both are different.

61. It is pertinent to observe the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, wherein an elaborative scheme for computation of future prospects have been discussed. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinunder –

62. The disability certificate on record reflects that the appellant suffers 84% permanent impairment in his right lower limb and genitourinary system, which affects his earning capacity in the future as he is unable to perform his daily activities without seeking assistance from others. Moreover, the fact that he can move around only in a wheelchair and frequent visits to the hospitals, shall have a huge impact on his future prospects.

63. Therefore, since the appellant was 44 years of age at the time of the accident and was an unskilled worker, this Court relies on Pranay Sethi (supra), for awarding an additional 25% of his established income, amounting to Rs. 1,37,670/- [= Rs. 1,10,136 (annual income) + 27,534 (25% of annual income)].

64. It is pertinent to mention that while awarding non-pecuniary expenses, the Court needs to consider the different circumstances based on the impact of the accident caused as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 755. It has been further observed that when the compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstance of the claimant needs to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life.

65. The appellant has incurred 84% permanent impairment in his right lower limb and genitourinary system, with 84% functional disability, thereby affecting his day-to-day activities, wherein his conveniences is seriously compromised due to the accident caused by the respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Moreover, the appellant’s mobility is restricted to the wheelchair as well as the inconvenience in using the Foley’s catheter for urinary purposes.

66. In light of the same, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was right in awarding Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of amenities, however, finds it imperative to enhance the compensation amount for loss of conveyance, by granting Rs. 1,00,000/- for the same.

67. Although no proof of requiring a special diet has been placed on record, given the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, which has not only affected him earlier but will be affecting him in the future, and considering that the genitourinary system is affected, this Court finds it reasonable to enhance the compensation under the head of loss of special diet, therefore granting a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant.

68. It has been stated by the PW-2 in his testimony that the appellant cannot do his daily activities without the necessary assistance being provided. Upon perusal of the records, no material was provided as to the incurrence of attendant/ nursing charges. Considering the magnitude of the injuries sustained by the appellant as well as placing reliance on the testimony of PW-2, this Court is of a considered view that the assistance may have been provided by an assistant or the family members during the treatment and that the same is required in the future as well. It is pertinent to mention the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 15 SCC 620, wherein it was observed that in absence of any material pertaining to the attendant charges are on record, a conservative estimate of Rs. 5,000/- per month appears to be the bare minimum. Therefore, an annual expense of Rs. 60,000/- along with the multiplier of 14 (since the appellant was 44 years at the time of the accident), this Court grants an amount of Rs. 8,40,000/- for nursing/ attendant charges.

69. The appellant suffered multiple injuries in the accident with 84% permanent impairment in the right lower limb and genitourinary system, thereby undergoing multiple surgeries. For the cause of accident, the appellant had to endure being in the hospital for a prolonged period of time and was not in a position to earn any income during his treatment. Moreover, due to the gravity of the injuries sustained, his ability to earn a future income is also very limited. Additionally, the appellant’s mobility being restricted to wheelchair as well as the frequent visits to the hospital do not facilitate the appellant with the enjoyment of fruits of this life.

70. In light of the situational difficulties incurred by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was right in granting Rs.1,00,000/- for mental & physical shock, however, finds it apposite to increase the compensation for pain & suffering, by granting Rs. 1,35,000/-.

71. Consequently, due to the multiple injuries sustained by the appellant with 85% permanent impairment in the right lower limb and genitourinary system, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has accurately awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for disfigurement, therefore, requires no enhancement for the same.

72. Although the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of life expectancy, it is the case of the appellant that the same should be granted given the facts and circumstances.

73. It is pertinent for this Court to peruse the testimony of PW-2, wherein it was stated that although the appellant will not be having a loss in life expectancy, the same will be affected if hygiene is compromised as a result of which urinary infection might get activated.

74. Given that there is a possibility of getting a urinary infection, as the same cannot be absolutely discarded based on the testimony of PW-2, this Court shall award a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for the loss of life expectancy.

75. Based on the aforementioned reasoning, this Court lays down the amount of compensation under different heads, after making the requisite corrections – S.No Heads of Compensation Amount

1. Medical expenses Rs. 13,45,234/-

2. Loss of future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/-

3. Loss of income during the treatment Rs. 4,95,612/-

4. Loss of future income Rs. 12,95,199/-

5. Future Prospects Rs. 1,37,670/-

6. Loss of conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/-

7. Loss of special diet Rs. 1,00,000/-

8. Nursing/ Attendant charges Rs. 8,40,000/-

9. Mental and physical shock Rs. 1,00,000/-

10. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,35,000/-

11. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/-

12. Disfiguration Rs. 1,00,000/-

13. Loss of life expectancy Rs. 75,000/- TOTAL Rs. 50,23,715/-

76. Considering the observations made hereinabove, it is held that this Court has enhanced the total compensation awarded to appellant from Rs. 29,04,442/- to Rs. 50,23,715/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

77. In view of the foregoing discussions of facts and law, the impugned order dated 10th June, 2020 passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, South East, Saket District Court, New Delhi in MAC NO. 4462/2016, is modified as per the aforementioned terms. The instant appeal stands partly allowed.

78. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 50,23,715/- to the appellant within thirty days of receipt of this order, after deducting the amount already paid/deposited.

79. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of along with the pending application(s), if any.

80. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J AUGUST 13, 2024 rk/sm/av