Afnees (Unconscious) Rep. Thr Mother Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vadakara &amp; Others
accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term compensation used in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. 15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, (1995) 1 SCC 551 , this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed: 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 which 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. In the same case, the Court further observed: In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Court considered some of the precedents and held: The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 the 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. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (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. 17. In the circumstances, we shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the appellant is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation. 18. In our view, considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is fairly educated, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/- per month taking into account the disability of the petitioner to be 100%, the Tribunal rightly awarded the multiplier of 18 and came to a figure of Rs. 6,48,000/- and the High Court is wrong in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company assessing the disability compensation at Rs. 5,76,000/- by adopting the multiplier of 16. (See Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) 19. Though the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- under different heads as compensation, the Tribunal has granted a meagre sum of Rs. 10,88,000/- and the High Court further reduced the compensation amount. We are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the High Court for future treatment was wholly inadequate as the High Court without considering the fact that the appellant because of the accident has to remain in the bed in his remaining life and he needs a person for his care and caution every time.
1[ds]This Court has, from time to time, expressed concern over the increasing number of motor accidents and pendency of large number of cases involving adjudication of claims made by the legal representatives of the deceased as also by those who suffer permanent injuries and disabilities of various types as a result of accidents18. In our view, considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is fairly educated, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/per month taking into account the disability of the petitioner to be 100%, the Tribunal rightly awarded the multiplier of 18 and came to a figure of Rs. 6,48,000/and the High Court is wrong in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company assessing the disability compensation at Rs. 5,76,000/by adopting the multiplier of 1619. Though the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/under different heads as compensation, the Tribunal has granted a meagre sum of Rs. 10,88,000/and the High Court further reduced the compensation amount. We are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the High Court for future treatment was wholly inadequate as the High Court without considering the fact that the appellant because of the accident has to remain in the bed in his remaining life and he needs a person for his care and caution every time
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
accident, the cost of his medical treatment and care is likely to be very high. In cases involving total or partial disablement, the term compensation used in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) would include not only the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred for future medical treatment/care necessary for a particular injury or disability caused by an accident. 15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, (1995) 1 SCC 551 , this Court while dealing with a case involving claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward v. James (1965) 1 All ER 563, Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (page 446) and observed: 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 which 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. In the same case, the Court further observed: In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. 16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Court considered some of the precedents and held: The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 the 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. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (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. 17. In the circumstances, we shall now consider whether the compensation awarded to the appellant is just and reasonable or he is entitled to enhanced compensation. 18. In our view, considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is fairly educated, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/- per month taking into account the disability of the petitioner to be 100%, the Tribunal rightly awarded the multiplier of 18 and came to a figure of Rs. 6,48,000/- and the High Court is wrong in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company assessing the disability compensation at Rs. 5,76,000/- by adopting the multiplier of 16. (See Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 ) 19. Though the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- under different heads as compensation, the Tribunal has granted a meagre sum of Rs. 10,88,000/- and the High Court further reduced the compensation amount. We are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the High Court for future treatment was wholly inadequate as the High Court without considering the fact that the appellant because of the accident has to remain in the bed in his remaining life and he needs a person for his care and caution every time.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
This Court has, from time to time, expressed concern over the increasing number of motor accidents and pendency of large number of cases involving adjudication of claims made by the legal representatives of the deceased as also by those who suffer permanent injuries and disabilities of various types as a result of accidents18. In our view, considering the age of the petitioner and the fact that he is fairly educated, it can be reasonably assumed that he would have earned at least Rs.3,000/per month taking into account the disability of the petitioner to be 100%, the Tribunal rightly awarded the multiplier of 18 and came to a figure of Rs. 6,48,000/and the High Court is wrong in allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company assessing the disability compensation at Rs. 5,76,000/by adopting the multiplier of 1619. Though the appellant had claimed an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/under different heads as compensation, the Tribunal has granted a meagre sum of Rs. 10,88,000/and the High Court further reduced the compensation amount. We are of the view that the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the High Court for future treatment was wholly inadequate as the High Court without considering the fact that the appellant because of the accident has to remain in the bed in his remaining life and he needs a person for his care and caution every time
