R.D. HAITANGADI

v.

MIS. PEST CONTROL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

JANUARY 6, 1995

(AM. AHMADI, CJ AND N.P. SINGH, J.]

Tort-Composite Negligence-Head on collision between car and Motor

Lony-Front left side of car entangled with front middle of lorry-Rashness

on part of drivers of two vehicles-Injured entitled for damages from owners

of both vehicles.

A

B

c

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 1

IOB-Accident Claim---l'ixing

amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident-Damages to be

assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages-Awarding of

compensation for pain and· suffering and loss of amenity of life-Special

circumstances including age of claimant and deprivation suffered to be taken D

into account.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section JJOB-Accident claim-l'ecuniary

Damages-Injured 52 years of age suffered 100% disability and paraplegia

below waist-Claim for Fowler's Bed, electric wheel chair and air inflated E

bed-Award of Rs. 1,47,000-Claim for Home Attendants-A.ward of Rs.

55,450 for present and Rs. 1,87,200 for future-Claim for Drugs and Tablets

(Allopathic)-Award of Rs. 9,000 for present and Rs. 18,000 for fu­

ture-Claim for Physiothera~Award of Rs. 34,200 for present and

Rs.50,000 for future Claim for loss of earning-Award of Rs. 1,80,000.

F

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section llOB-Accident claim-Non

Pecuniary damages-Injured, an advocate having a good practice, 52 years of

age-Suffered 100% disability and paraplegia below waisr-Award of Rs.

1,50,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 for loss of amenities of life.

Accident Claim-Interest-Not payable over amount directed to be paid

to injured in respect of future expenditure.

The appellant met with an accident. while travelling in a car 9W11ed

by Respondent No.1. The appellant suffered serious injuries in the bead

G

on collision of the car and a motor lorry resulting in 100% disability and H

75

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A paraplegia below the waist. Notices given to the Insurance Company and

other parties liable to pay compensation resulted in no response so the

appellant filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

on 13.11.1980.

B

The appellant was a practising advocate who used to appear in the

High

Court and

Supreme Court of India. He was also a Judge of the City

Civil

Court for some time until he resigned in 1964. Because of the

accident, he became disabled

and was unable to resume bis practice.

The owner of the lorry resisted his liability to pay any compensation

C on the ground that the vehicle was insured and so the insurance company

was liable to pay compensation, if any, to the appellant. The owner of the

car resisted the claim asserting that the accident took place entirely due

to the negligence of the driver of the motor lorry.

In any case, according

to the respondent, the compensation claimed was excessive, imaginary

and

speculative in nature.

D

The Accident Claims Tribunal passed an Award directing

respon­

deats 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally Rs. 26,25,992 with interest at the

rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application till payment. The

insurer of the motor lorry was liable to pay Rs. 50,000 and interest thereon

E and the insurer of the car was directed to pay all the compensation along

with interest on behalf of respondent

No. 1. The Tribnnal was of the view

that there was composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both

vehicles.

F

G

Two appeals were tiled against the award, one on behalf of the

appellant for enhancement of the compensation

and the other on behalf of

the owner of the car and its insurance company questioning the validity

and correctness of the award. The High Conrt rednced the compensation

from

Rs.

26,25,992 to Rs. 8,57,352 and the rate of interest to 6% per annnm.

Against this the present appeals

and

S.L.P. have been filed.

Disposing the matter, this

Court

HELD : 1.1 Any damage cansed

by negligent condnct is generally

actionable irrespective of the kind of activity out of which the damage

arose.

Any person nsing the road as a motorist will be liable, if by his

H action be negligently canses physical injuries to any body else. In the

R.D. HATIAl'/GADI v. PEST CONTROL (I) PVf. LTD. 77

instant case, the fact that the front Iert side of the car was entangled with A

the front middle of the lorry indicated about the rashness on the part of

the drivers of the

two vehicles.

1.2. 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 B

victim bas actually incurred and which is 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 the

two concepts, pecuniary damages may include expenses

incurred

by the claimant on account or : (i) medical attendance (ii) loss of C

earning of profit upto the date or trial; (iii)

other material loss. So far as

non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include

(i) damages for

mental

and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely

to be sulTered in future; (ii) damages

to compensate for the loss of

amenities

·of life which inay include a variety or matters i.e. on account of

injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for D

the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity

of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, dis­

comfort, disaP1>oiutment, frustration and mental stress iu life.

1.3. Whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fill the amount of E

compensation iu cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some

hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the

nature of the disability caused. But all these elements have to be viewed

with objective standards.

Ward v. James, [1965] 1 All E.R. 563 and C.K Subramonia Iyer and F

Ors. v. V.T. Kunhikuttan Nair and Ors., AIR (1970) SC 376, reli~ on.

1.4. In the instant case the appellant had claimed Rs. 37,688 for

Ayurvedic treatment against which an amount of Rs. 4,000 had been rightly

allowed

by the High Court. The appellant's claim

'for Rs. 21,000 for G

Fowler's Bed for the present and Rs. 21,000 for the future, Rs. 50,000 for

electric

wheel chair for the present and Rs.

50,000 for the future. Rs. 5,000

for Air Inflated Bed for the present and Rs. 5,000 for the future are

allowed. For Home Attendants, the appellant claimed

Rs.

55,450 for the

present and

Rs.

1,87,200 for the future. The High Court allowed 36,000 and

Rs. 72,000 respectively. There was no occasion for the High Court to be so H

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A mathematical on this question. Under the circnmstances prevailing in the

society in respect of Home Attendants, the High Court shonld have allowed

the amount as claimed

by the appellant. For Drugs and Tablets

(Al·

lopathic), the claim had been made for Rs. 9,000 for the present and Rs.

18,000 for the future. The High Court bad allowed Rs. 5,400 and Rs. 10,800

B

c

respectively. The claim under this head appeared to be reasonable and

should have been allowed. Against the appellant's claim for Ayllrvedic

treatment for Rs. 7,800 for the present and Rs. 37,440 for the future, the

High Court rightly allowed Rs. 7,200 and Rs. 12,000 respectively. Bedsore

Dressing Charges for the present

and future were claimed respectively at

Rs.

72,900 and Rs. 1,29,000 against which the High Court rightly directed

payment of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 10,000. The High Court rightly allowed Rs.

10,000 for the present and Rs. 5,000 for the future for Cathetarisation. Rs.

20,100 bad been claimed as charges for consulting Surgeons for the present

and Rs. 14,400 for the future. The High Court rightly allowed Rs. 5,000 for

the present

and the same amount for the future. For physiotherapy Rs.

D 34,200 were claimed for the present and Rs. 1,87,200 for the future. The

High Court allowed Rs.

12,000 for the present and Rs. 12,000 for the future.

It is well known that for victims of road accidents, physiotherapy is one of

the acknowledged modes of treatment which bas to

be pursued for a long

duration. The High Court should have allowed Rs.

34,200 as claimed by

the appellant for the present and atleast Rs.

50,000 for the future. In

E respect of loss of earnings a claim had been made for Rs. 1,80,000 but the

High Court allowed Rs. 1,44,000. The High Court should have allowed the

whole claim.

For loss of future

earning a claim bad been made at Rs.

3,60,000. The High Court rightly allowed Rs. 1,62,000, as it is a reasonable

amount to

be awarded taking all facts and circumstances in respect of the

F future earnings of the appellant.

1.5. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and

suffering and

loss of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into

account including bis age, the unusual deprivation be bas suffered, the

effect thereof on his future life etc. The amount of compensation for

G non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect

that different circumstances

'iave been taken into consideration. In this

case as the appellant was att Advocate having good practice in different

courts

and because of the accident be bad been crippled and could move

only on wheel chair, the High Court should have allowed

an amount of Rs.

H

1,50,000 in respect of claim for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000 in

R.D. HATIANGAD!v. PESTCONTROL{I) PVT. LID. [N.P.SINGH,J.] 79

respect of loss of amenities of life. Thus a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is directed A

to be paid as against the claim of Rs. 6 lakhs under the heads 'pain and

suffering' and 'loss of amenities of life'.

1.6. Interest is to be paid over the amount which has become payable

on the date of the award and not which is to be paid for expenditure to be

incurred in future.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1799-

1800 of 1989.

B

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.88 of the Bombay High C

Court in F.A. Nos. 538/86 & 106 of 1987.

G.L. Sanghi, Ms. Urmila Sirur, S.M. Suri, Prarnod Dayal, J.K. Das,

J. Savla, V. Kumar and Ms. Nina Gupta for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court

was delivered by

N.P.

SINGH, J. The appellant met with an accident while travelling

in an Ambassador car (Registration

No. MEQ 4583) on

20.5.1980 at about

8.30 A.M. near village Sirur on Karwar-Mangalore Road (National High-

D

way No. 17) within the State of Kamataka. There was a head on collision

between the car

in which the appellant was travelling and the Motor Lorry E

(Registration No.

MYS 7218). Because of the said collision, the driver of

the car in which the appellant

was travelling was thrown out and died on

the spot, whereas the appellant

was trapped between the dashboard and

the seat. Mr. Nagarkatti

who was also travelling with the appellant in the

car

was thrown on the road. The impact was so severe that the front left

p

side of the door of the car was jarmned and could not be opened. Seeing

the accident, the villagers gathered and broke open the left side of the car

with the help of crow bar and the appellant

was taken out. The appellant wa' removed to the Kasturba Hospital where he was treated as indoor

patient from 20.5.1980 to 27.5.1980. When the relations of the appellant

reached the hospital, a decision was taken to remove the appellant to G

Bombay and accordingly on 27.5.1980 he was brought to Bombay and was

admitted in the Sion Hospital. The. appellant remained in the said hospital

as indoor patient from 27.5.1980 to 2.8.1980. Because of the accident, the

appellant suffered serious injuries resulting into 100% disability and a

paraplegia below the waist.

H

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

A The car was owned by Mis Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ud., respondent

No.l and was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited,

respondent

No.2. The motor lorry was owned by one Madhav Bolar -

respondent

No. 3 and was insured by Oriential Fire and General Insurance

Company Limited, respondent No. 4. According to the appellant, the

B driver of the car in which the appellant was sitting as well as the driver of

the lorry which was coming from the opposite side, both were being driven

in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into a head on collision.

On

11.10.1980 the appellant gave notice to the Insurance Company and other

parties

who were liable to pay compensation and called upon them to pay

compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.

Since there was no response, on 13.11.1980

C the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Initially, the

appellant

made a claim for compensation amounting to Rs. 4,00,000, but

on 16.4.1984 he claimed Rs. 35,00,000 as the compensation from the

respondents and

claim petition was amended. The age of the appellant at

D the time of accident was 52 years.

The appellant was a practising advocate before the accident. He was

also a Judge of the City Civil Court for some time until he resigned in the

year 1964. The appellant used to appear in the various courts including the

High Court and the

Supreme Court of India. Because of the acciden~ the

E appellant became disabled and he was unable to resume his practice.

The claim made on behalf of the appellant was resisted by the

respondents

to the said petition on different grounds. The owner of the

-lorry resisted

his liability to pay any amount of compensation on the ground

p that although he was the owner of the said lorry but since it was insured

with respondent No. 4, the insurance company was liable to pay compen­

sation, if any to the appellant. Mis

Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ud., who were

the owner of the car resisted the claim made on behalf of the appellant

asserting that the driver of the said car was driving the car very cautiously

G and carefully and the accident took place entirely due to the negligence on

the part of the driver of the motor lorry. In any case, according to the said

respondent,

the compensation claimed on behalf of the appellant was

excessive, imaginary and speculative in nature, which according to the said

respondent

was an attempt to make

"a fortune out of misfortune". Respon­

dent

No.2, New India Assurance Co.

Ud., with whom the car in question

H was insured took a plea that their liability was limited to the requirements

R.D. HATIANGADI v. PEST CONTROL (I) PVT. LTD. [N.P. SINGH, J.] 81

as per law and terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by them A

in favour of Respondent No.l. The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co.

Ltd., who had insured the motor lorry of Respondent No. 3, their stand

was also the same that they were bound by the terms and conditions of the

insurance policy.

The Accident Claim Tribunal on consideration of the materials on B

· record and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties passed on Award

directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the

appellant compensation of

Rs. 26,25,992 together with interest at the rate

of 12% per annum from the date of the application i.e.

13.11.1980 till

payment and costs of the said application within three months. The

C

Tribunal was also of the view that respondent No.4 the insurer of the motor

lorry belonging to respondent

No.3 was liable to pay the compensation to

the extent of Rs.

50,000 and interest thereon and proportionate costs. In

the award a direction was given to Respondent No.2, the insurer of the car

to pay all the compensation along with interest and costs on behalf of

D

respondent No. 1.

Against the Award aforesaid, two appeals were filed before the High

Court, one on behalf of the appellant for enhancement of the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal and the other on behalf of M/s

Pest Control

(India)

Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., E

respondent

No. 2 questioning the validity and correctness of the award in

question. The High Court by the impugned judgment modified the award

of the Tribunal and reduced the compensation from Rs.

26,25,992 to Rs.

8,57,352. The

}'!:igh Court has also reduced the rate of interest from 12%

per annum to the rate of 6% per annum. The award against the insurer of

F

the lorry-respondent No. 4 was affirmed and direction was given to make

payment with interest at the rate of 6% and the proportionate costs.

It was

further directed that if the respondents failed and neglected to pay the

amount in full or part, such defaulted amount shall carry 12% interest per

annum from the date of default till its realisation.

On the aforesaid finding

the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed, whereas the G

appeal filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed by the High

Court in part.

During the last

few decades question of payment of compensation

for accidents has assumed great importance, which

is co-related with the H

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) l S.C.R.

A accidents

which have touched a new height not only in India but in different

parts of the world. Initially, the theory of payment of compensation was

primarily linked with tort compensation -only if the injury or damage was

'

B

caused by someone's fault. Of late the injury or damage being caused by

someone's fault is being read as because of someone's negligence or

carelessness. That

is why any damage caused by negligent conduct is

generally actionable irrespective of the kind of activity out of which the

damage arose. Even in an action based on the tort, the applicant has to

show that the defendant was negligent i.e. there was a failure on his part

to take that degree of care

which was reasonable in the circumstances of

the case. There has never bear

any doubt that those using the highways are

C under a duty to be careful and the legal position today is quite plain that

any person using the road as a motorist will be liable, if by his action he

negligently causes physical injuries to anybody else.

The Tribunal

as well as the

High Court has examined the evidence

D adduced on behalf of the parties and

have recorded clear findings that at

the relevant time the car and the lorry were being driven in a rash and

negligent manner.· Reference has been made to the evidence adduced on

that question. The fact that the front left side of the car was entangled with

the front middle of the lorry speaks about the rashness on the part of

th~

drivers of the two vehicles. The Tribunal has also pointed out from the

E materials on record that the motor car had gone to the wrong side of the

road at the time of the accident. The High Court after referring to the

order of the Tribunal said that after going through the evidence of the

witnesses and the circumstances placed, it

was of the opinion that the

Tribunal

was right in holding that there was composite negligence on the

F part of the drivers of both the vehicles and because of such negligence the

appellant had sustained such serious injuries. The High Court also said that

in

view of composite negligence, the appellant was entitled for damages

form the owners of both the vehicles and consequently the insurers of the

two vehicles shall also be liable subject to the terms and conditions of the

insurance policies. The Tribunal

as well as the High Court were satisfied

G that because of the accident aforesaid, the appellant had become

paraplegic and it

was not easy to assess the exact compensation which is

payable to him.

Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to

H . a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as

R.D.HATIANGAD!v. PESTCONTROL(l)PVf.LTD.[N.P.SINGH,J.) 83

pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those A

which the victim has actually incurred and which is 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 in­

curred

by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit B

upto 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 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 C

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 cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who

D

was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the

injuries sustained by

him. It is really difficult in this background to assess

the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the

appellant and for having become a

life long handicapped. 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 E

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.

In the case

Ward v. James, (1965) 1 All E.R. 563 it was said :

"Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for

F

his

11

lost years", you can, however, compensate him for his loss

during his shortened span, that is, during his expected "years of

survival". You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during G

that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance.

But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless

invalid?

He may owing to brain

mjury, be rendered unconscious

for the rest of his days, or,

owing to back injury, be unable to rise

from

his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worth-while. H

A

B

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.

Money is no good to him. Yet judges and juries have to do the

best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they

find it well nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the

incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conven­

tional sum. The judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep

it in line with the change in the value of money."

In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix

the amount of compensation in cases of acciden~ it involves some guess

work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked

with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have

C to be viewed with objective standards.

This Court in the case C.K Subramonia Iyer and Others v. T. Kun­

hikuttan Nair and Others, AIR (1970) SC 376 in connection with the Fatal

Accidents

Act has observed:

D "In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considera-

E

F

G

H

tions of matte1 which rest in speculation or fancy though conjecture

to some extent is inevitable."

In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non­

pecuniary

loss at page 446 it has been said:

"Non-pecuniary loss; the pattern. Damages awarded for pain and

sufforing and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which

is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being

interpreted

by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus

there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing

a

provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries,

and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury

will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,

including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is

reflected in the actual amount of the award.

The fall in the value of money leads to a continuing reassess­

ment of these awards and to periodic reassessments of damages

at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily

identifiable

and not subject to large variations in individual

cases."

We are informed that during the pendency of the appeal before the

R.D. HATIANGADI v. PEST CON'IROL (I) PVf. LTD. [N.P. SINGH, J.] 85

High Court on basis of interim directions - Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 9 lakhs, in A

total Rs. 12 lakhs have been directed to be deposited. However, in the final

decision, the High Court was of the opinion that the appellant was entitled

to Rs. 8,57,352 only as the compensation.

During the hearing

of the appeal a chart was circulated showing the B

amounts claimed on behalf of the appellant under different heads and the

amounts allowed or rejected by the High Court, under those heads.

So far,

the amount mentioned against Sl. No. 1 is concerned the High Court has

allowed the whole claim of Rs. 47,652 and there is no dispute on that

account. Against SL Nos." 2 to 6 the appellant had claimed Rs. 37,688 for

Ayurvedic treatment against which an amount of Rs. 4,000 has been C

allowed by the High Court. According to us, this part of the judgment of

the High Court does not require any interference. Against SL No. 7 the

appellant has claimed for Fowler's Bed, Rs. 21,000 for the present and Rs.

21,000 for the future which has not been allowed. Same is the position in

respect of electric

wheel chair against

SI. No.8 which has been claimed at D

the rate of Rs. 50,000 for the present and Rs. 50,000 for the future which

has been rejected by the High Court. According to us, when admittedly

because

of the injuries suffered during the accident, the appellant has

become paraplegic, the aforesaid amounts should have been allowed by the

High Court. Accordingly, we allow the said claim for Rs. 1,42,000 under SI. Nos. 7 and 8. So far claim for Air Inflated Bed at SI. No. 9 is concerned, E

the appellant has claimed Rs. 5,000 for the present and Rs. 5,000 for the

future. The High Court has allowed only Rs. 5,000 for the present. Accord-

ing to us, the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000 also should have been allowed

by the High Court. Coming to the claim for Home Attendants against SI.

No. 9A, the appellant has claimed Rs. 55,450 for the present and Rs.

1,87,200 for the future. The High Court has allowed Rs. 36,000 and 72,000

respectively. We feel that there was no occasion for the High Court to be

so mathematical on this question. Under the circumstances prevailing in

F

the society in respect of Home Attendants, the High Court should have

allowed the amount as claimed by the appellant. We accordingly allow the G

same. For Drugs and Tablets (Allopathic), claim has been made for Rs.

9,000 for the present and Rs. 18,000 for the future. The High Court has

allowed Rs. 5,400 and Rs. 10,800 respectively under that head as detailed

against SI. No. 10. The claim under this head appears to be reasonable and

should

have been allowed, we allow the same. Against

SI. No. 11 the

appellant

has claimed for Ayurvedic treatment Rs. 7,800 for the present H

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A and Rs. 37,440 for the future. The High Court has allowed Rs. 7,200 and

Rs. 12,000 respectively. According to us this part does not require any

interference. Under SI. No. 12 (i) Bedsore Dressing Charges for the

present and future have been claimed respectively at Rs. 72,900 and Rs.

1,29,600 against which the High Court has allowed Rs. 20,000 and Rs.

B 10,000 respectively. In normal course for Bedsore the claim for Rs. 72,900

for the present and Rs. 1,29,600 for the future appears to be exorbitant.

The High Court has rightly directed payment of

Rs.

20,000 and Rs. 10,000.

As such this part of the finding of the High Court does not require

interference. Under SI. No. 12 (ii) claim has been made for Cathetarisation

charges at Rs.

1,29,600 for the present and Rs.

2,59,200 for the future. The

C High Court has allowed Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively. We are of

the opinion that the amount awarded by the High Court under this head

does not require any interference. So far the order of the High Court in

respect of bladder wash charges and enima charges

is concerned, it

also

does not require any interference. Under SI. No. 13 Rs. 20,100 has been

D claimed as charges for consulting Surgeons for the present and Rs. 14,400

has been claimed for the future. The Hlgh Court has allowed Rs. 5,000 for

the present and the same amount for future. We feel that this part of the

finding of the High Court does not require any interference. For

Physiotherapy under SI. No. 14, Rs. 34,200 has been claimed for the present

and Rs. 1,87,200 for the future. The High Court has allowed Rs. 12,000 for

E the present and Rs. 12,000 for the future. It is well known that for victims

of road accidents, Physiotherapy

is one of the acknowledged mode of

treatment which requires to be pursned for a long duration. The High

Court should have allowed Rs.

34,200 as claimed by the appellant for the

present and at least Rs. 50,000 for the future. However we allow the same.

F In respect of loss of earnings under SI. No. 15 claim has been made for Rs.

1,80,000, the High Court has allowed Rs. 1,44,000. The High Court should

have allowed the whole claim. We

allow the same. For loss of future

earnings, claim has been made at Rs.

3,60,000. The High Court has allowed

Rs. 1,62,000 in respect of loss of future earnings. This part of the award

does not require

any interference because an amount of Rs.

1,62,000 can

G be held to be a reasonable amount to be awarded taking all facts and

circumstances

in respect of the future earning of the appellant.

The claim under

SI. No. 16 for pain and suffering and for loss of

amenities of life under SI. No. 17, are claims for Non-pecuniary Loss. The

H appellant has claimed lump-sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000 each under the

R.D. HAITANGAD!v. PEST CONTROL(!) PVf.LTD. [N.P. SINGH,J.] 87

two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,00,000 against the claims of A

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 B

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 wheel chair, 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 C

(Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs. 6,00,000 under the heads

'Pain and Suffering' and 'Loss of amenities of life'.

So far the direction of the High Court regarding papnent of interest

at the rate of 6% over the total amount held to be payable to the appellant

is concerned, it has to be modified. The High Court should have clarified D

that

the interest shall not be payable over the amount directed to be paid

to the appellant in respect of future expenditures under different heads. It

need not be pointed out that interest is to be paid over the amount which

has become payable on the date of award and not which is to be paid for

expenditures to be incurred in future. As such we direct that appellant shall E

not be

entitled to interest over such amount.

The appeals of the appellant are allowed to the extent indicated

above. No costs.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4586 of 1989 F

This Special Leave Petition has been filed on behalf of M/s Pest

Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. against the same judgment of the High

Court. As the Civil Appeal Nos. 1799-1800 of 1989 have been allowed in

part and the amount of compensation awarded to the victim by the High G

Court has been enhanced, this Special Leave Petition has to be dismissed

and it is accordingly dismissed. No. costs.

A.G. Appeals allowed.