ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON & Anr.

16 S.C.R. 1 ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 4648 of 2022) JULY 06, 2022 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Injuries causing 100% disability – Determination of just and reasonable compensation – Pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages – Appellant-claimant suffered 100% permanent disability in a road accident when he was five and half years of age – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-, High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.23,20,000/- – On appeal, held: Taking guidance from the judgment of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others reported as [2020] 3 SCR 622 for determination of the compensation in the present case, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable – On facts, the amount determined for payment of the compensation in pecuniary heads ( i.e. the loss of future earning, medical expenses including future medical expenses, attendant charges and transportation including future transportation) comes to Rs.46,62,000/- and in non-pecuniary heads (mental and physical pain, sufferings present and in future, loss of amenities of life including loss of marital bliss, loss of expectancy in life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life etc.) comes to Rs.5,00,000/- – Total compensation comes to Rs.51,62,000/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.28,42,000/- to carry interest @ 6.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Determination of just compensation – Multiplier method – Held: Multiplier method has been recognized as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided looking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs – Thus, for determination of just compensation to ensure justice with the family of deceased or the injured as the case may be the compensation can be determined applying said method – Not only for determination of future loss of earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed – 1 1 A B C D E F G H 2 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal while granting the compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and attendant charges only for 20 years was not justified – Said amount should be determined applying the multiplier method.

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation – Determination of – Basis for, reason for awarding such compensation, applying the uniform methodology comparable to the injuries – English Judgments vis-à-vis Indian Law – Discussed. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Non-pecuniary damages – “pain, shock and suffering” – Multiple factors to be considered from the date of accident – Discussed. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability in a road accident and the liability is joint and several. By making the payment of compensation for damages would not revive the claimant into his original position. The compensation towards wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decided by the Court but it may be determined as per the recognized principles. [Para 9, 10][9-F; 10-B-C]

1.2 The High Court in the impugned order observed that the claimant has now started practice as an advocate, therefore, future loss of earning has been calculated only for 10 years, applying the multiplier of 16, without looking to the facts that claimant cannot perform the work of advocacy similar to the other advocates by attending the cases in different Courts. The attendant charges have been allowed only for 20 years with one attendant. In fact, not only for determination of future loss of earning but for attendant charges also the multiplier method should be followed. The multiplier method has been recognized as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided looking to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs. Thus, for determination of just compensation to ensure justice with the family of deceased or the injured as the case may be the compensation can be determined applying said method. Therefore, the Tribunal while granting the compensation of future loss as well as earning only for 10 years and attendant charges only for 20 years was not justified. In fact, the said amount ABHIMANYU PARTAP SINGH v. NAMITA SEKHON & ANOTHER should be determined applying the multiplier method. In the judgment of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, while replacing the schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, it is not made clear what multiplier would be applicable below the age of 15. In the case of Kajal, the injured was 12 years of the age, however, the multiplier of 18 has been applied. Therefore, taking guidance from the judgment of Kajal, for determination of the compensation in the present case, the multiplier of 18 shall be applicable. [Para 14, 15][11-G-H; 12- A-E] Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others (2020) 4 SCC 413 : [2020] 3 SCR 622 – relied on.