Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Parasnath Satnami @ Shrawan S/o Ramchand Satnami, Aged About 37 Years R/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33724 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 792 of 2020 1 - Ku. Trisha Sonkar D/o Manoj Sonkar, Aged About 13 Months, Minor, Through Natural Guardian And Next Friend Manoj Sonkar S/o Banau Ram Sonkar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 63, Sonkarpara Bhatagaon, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Parasnath Satnami @ Shrawan S/o Ramchand Satnami, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mahamara, Abadipara, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhiraj Shrivastava S/o R. P. Shrivastava, Aged About 42 Years R/o Santoshi Darbar, Ganjpara, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Ltd., Through - Divisional Manager And Office Akashganga Parisar, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh For Appellant For Respondent : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu --- Respondents Pandya, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 17/07/2025 1. Appellants/Claimants have filed these two appeals seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Claims Tribunal in its award dated 21.01.2020 passed by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 148/2016. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 10.06.2016, when Applicants i.e. Satyawati along with applicant Ku. Trisha Sonkar and Lali Sonkar, were traveling to Gughwa from Gudardehi on motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 CZ 7604. Along with them one Manoj Sonkar was traveling on his own motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 CW 7165 and when they reached near Patora Petrol Pump, Manoj Sonkar went to refuel his motorcycle at that time, around 08:00 P.M. one Truck bearing registration no. CG 08 ZC 0403 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the applicants i.e. Satyawati and Ku. Trisha Sonkar. In the said accident, both the applicants suffered serious injuries, they were taken
Facts
to hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the said accident, FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 148/2016 P.S. Utai, District – Durg for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Legal Reasoning
54. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed [(2007) 2 SCC 349 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 643] . This Court has held that loss of earning capacity is not a substitute physical for percentage of disablement. It is simply one of the factors taken into account to award just and reasonable compensation. Even though the claimant does not suffer from 100% physical permanent disability, he suffers from 100% functional disability if he loses the capacity to pursue his work as a result of the accident. It is worthwhile to extract para 8 from the aforesaid judgment which reads as under: (SCC p. 354) “8. Loss of earning capacity is, therefore, not a substitute for percentage of the physical disablement. It is one of the factors taken into account. In the instant case the doctor who examined the claimant also noted about the functional disablement. In other words, the doctor had taken note of the relevant factors relating to loss of earning capacity. Without indicating any reason or basis the High Court held that there was 100% loss of earning capacity. 55. In Palraj v. North East Karnataka RTC [(2010) 10 SCC 347 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 174] , where the appellant was a driver, this Court held that 8 although the appellant has lost the use of his legs, the same amounts to total disablement as far as driving a vehicle is concerned. 58. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and various courts and the High Court of Karnataka and authors referred to supra, we have to record the finding of fact having regard to the nature of grievous injuries and her disfigured face and that she was acting as an actress in the films, TV serials, etc. that her functional disablement is 100%. This relevant aspect of the matter has been conveniently omitted to be considered both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court while determining compensation under various heads of non-pecuniary damages. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that under the different heads of non-pecuniary damages she is entitled to higher compensation in her appeal. For that purpose, we are required to consider her annual income for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation under the aforesaid different heads of non-pecuniary damages.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738 has observed as under:- “7. It was also argued that in a judgment reported as Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 577] , the injured was a 12-year-old girl who had suffered an injury to the extent that her IQ got less than 20% as compared to a child of her age and the medical board had assessed her social age to be only of a 9-month-old child. This Court had recognised that Schedule II of the Act could be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. This Court in the aforesaid case held as under: (SCC pp. 419, 421 & 426, paras 6, 12 & 27). “6. It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to do. The 9 court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very conservatively, but on the other hand, the compensation should also not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token damages. *** 12. The assessment of damages in personal injury cases raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances, should be made. *** 27. One factor which must be kept in mind while assessing the compensation in a case like the present one is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to court for enhancement of award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding the compensation. While awarding this amount, we are not only taking the physical disability but also the mental disability and various other factors. This child will remain bedridden for life. Her mental age will be that of a nine- month-old child. Effectively, while her body grows, she will remain a small baby. We are dealing with a girl who will physically become a woman but will mentally remain a 9-month- old child. This girl will miss out playing with her 10 friends. She cannot communicate; she cannot enjoy the pleasures of life; she cannot even be amused by watching cartoons or films; she will miss out the fun of childhood, the excitement of youth; the pleasures of a marital life; she cannot have children who she can love, let alone grandchildren. She will have no pleasure. Hers is a vegetable existence. Therefore, we feel in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case even after taking a very conservative view of the matter an amount payable for the pain and suffering of this child should be at least Rs 15,00,000.” 11. The claimant child after taking treatment from hospitals had appeared before the medical Board for examining herself on 11.09.2019. She was examined by the Medical Board and even after lapse of about 03 years, doctor/Medical Board had issued the disability certificate mentioning permanent disability of 80% on both upper limbs and lower limbs, not progressive, not likely to improve, re-assessment not necessary. Mr. P.K. Gupta, doctor who was member of the Medical Board was examined by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal as AW-2. He proved the disability certificate and further stated that due to grievous head injury, her both hands and both limbs became weak and she suffered spastic quadriparesis. He further clarified in para 3 of his statement that, she is unable to move, cannot stand of her own and she could not be able to take care of herself and need an attendant continuously. In the aforementioned evidence of the doctors who are experts in the field as also, the disability certificate, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the disability to the extent of 80% resulting in loss of 80% income as mentioned in the disability certificate, which, in the opinion of this Court is less. 11 12.From the documentary evidence available on record, it is apparent that the claimant i.e. the minor child on the date of accident was only 13 months of age, on the date of examination before the Medical Board, after 03 years of accident, found to be incapable of taking care of herself, unable to stand, unable to walk. In the said circumstances, disability suffered would be 100% instead of 80% and therefore, loss of income would also be 100% instead of 80. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Claims Tribunal has further awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards pains and sufferings which also in the facts of the case is much less. Considering the age and nature of injury and disability suffered by the claimant child, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of pans and sufferings from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 14.The claimant shall be entitled for Rs. 30,000/- towards the special diet instead of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance expenses as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal and Rs. 1,00,000/- for future treatment. Learned Claims Tribunal has computed Rs. 30,000/- as compensation towards the attendant which, in the facts of the case and the evidence available on record is much less. The doctor while proving the disability certificate (Ex. P/65) stated that, he found the minor child/claimant suffering with spastic quadriparesis and unable to stand, walk and take care of herself, in the opinion of this Court, she may require attendant for whole of her life and therefore, assessing the wages for attendant on notional basis, as per the minimum-wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 15.Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 50,000/- towards the loss of amenities in life which also is less on the facts of the case. The 12 child aged about 13 months suffered permanent disability. She could not be able to move, stand and take care of herself and she lost marriage prospects and longevity of her life is also reduced. Before seeing the world and enjoying the human life childhood, she became bedridden and therefore, considering entirety of the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The claimant will be entitled for compensation under the head of medical expenses as awarded by the Claims Tribunal of Rs. 1,63,310/-. It is ordered accordingly. 16.Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Master Ayush (Supra) for assessing income on notional basis of a minor child has held that income is to be assessed keeping in mind the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The appellants life has become dark and upon mercy of others, she became dependent on others for each and every work of her, including even to do the daily routine activities. Though the minor child of tender age actually does not work on the date of accident or deciding claim application, however, when she will grow older, after becoming major with the disability she suffered, she may not be able to work and earn and therefore, to make her secure, compensation has to be calculated keeping in mind notional income. As on the date of accident, minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 for an Unskilled Labourer of ‘A’ Zone area was Rs. 6,000/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to determine income of the claimant for purpose of 13 computing compensation as Rs. 6000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 17.For the purpose computing loss of future income, learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of the claimant to be 01 year on the date of accident and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Umakant Tiwari Vs. Jay Prakash Shrivastava reported in (2019) 3 ALLD 1693 and also the decision in case of Rukmani Bai Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. reported in ILR (2019) CG 2018 has assessed the income as Rs. 30,000/- per month. In both the cases relied upon by the learned Claims Tribunal, the judgment was passed relying upon decision in case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishan Gopal (Supra) had considered the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- for an accident occurred in the year 1998. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Master Ayush (Supra) considering that the value of money has been drastically come down has assessed the income of the injured child or the deceased child taking into consideration the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing on the date of accident. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 197 has observed thus:- “11. So far as the award of compensation in case of children is concerned, Shri Justice Chandrachud has divided them into two groups, the first group between the age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between the age group of 10 to 15 years. In case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs 50,000 has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which the conventional figure of Rs 25,000 has been added and as such to the heirs of the 14 children, a consolidated sum 14 of Rs 75,000 each, has been awarded. So far as the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years, there are 10 such children who died on the fateful day and having found their contribution to the family at Rs 12,000 per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of the father and then the conventional compensation of Rs 25,000 has been added to each case and consequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years of age, have been granted compensation to the tune of Rs 1,57,000 each. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by its parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parents' claim and prospective loss will found a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of Taff Vale Rly. v. Jenkins [1913 AC 1 : 82 LJKB 49 : 107 LT 564] and Lord Atkinson said thus: “… all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact — there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can, I think, be drawn from 15 circumstances other than and different from them.” At the same time, it must be held that a mere speculative possibility of benefit is not sufficient. Question whether there exists a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is always a mixed question of fact and law. There are several decided cases on this point, providing the guidelines for determination of compensation in such cases but we do not think it necessary for us to advert, as the claimants had not adduced any materials on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefits, which the parents expected. In case of a bright and healthy boy, his performances in the school, it would be easier for the authority to arrive at the compensation amount, which may be different from another sickly, unhealthy, rickety child and bad student, but as has been stated earlier, not an iota of material was produced before Shri Justice Chandrachud to enable him to arrive at a just compensation in such cases and, therefore, he has determined the same on an approximation. Mr Nariman, appearing for TISCO on his own, submitted that the compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his views also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. Loss of a child to the parents is irrecoupable, and no amount of money could compensate the parents. Having regard to the environment from which these children were brought, their parents being reasonably well- placed officials of Tata Iron and Steel Company, and on considering the submission of Mr Nariman, we would direct that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs 1.5 lakhs, to which the conventional figure of Rs 50,000 should be added and thus the 16 total amount in each case would be Rs 2.00 lakhs. So far as the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years, they are all students of Class VI to Class X and are children of employees of TISCO. TISCO itself has a tradition that every employee can get one of his children employed in the Company. Having regard to these facts, in their case, the contribution of Rs 12,000 per annum appears to us to be on the lower side and in our considered opinion, the contribution should be Rs 24,000 and instead of 11 multiplier, the appropriate multiplier would be 15. Therefore, the compensation, so calculated on the aforesaid basis should be worked out to Rs 3.60 lakhs, to which an additional sum of Rs 50,000 has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs 4.10 lakhs for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children. 12. So far as the eight other persons who died, belonging to the other category, Shri Justice Chandrachud had arrived at the compensation on the basis of dependency of 60% of the annual income and thereafter, has applied different multipliers, depending upon the age, and we see no infirmity with the determination thus made. In their case, however, we would enhance the conventional figure from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000.” 19. In view of the aforementioned decisions, I find it appropriate to determine income of the injured who suffered with the motor-accidental injuries on 10.06.2016 for the purpose of compuation of just compensation s Rs. 6,000/- per month. As this Court in the preceding paragraphs has held that initial disablement of the appellant/claimant as 100% and therefore, there shall be 100% loss of earning. 20. In the case of Master Ayush (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has 17 applied the multiplier of 18 in case of death of 05 years old child and therefore, in the light of above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it appropriate to apply multiplier of 18. The Claimant being less than 40 years of age and taking note of the decision in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, there shall be addtion of 40% of the assessed income towards the future prosecpts. Looking to the nature of injuries and the evidence of the doctor who categorically stated that her both hands and legs became week, she is unable to take care of herself, unable to stand and walk and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, she may require attendant for her life as this Court has assessed the minimum-wages of the Unskilled Labourer as Rs.6000/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation under the head of attendant as Rs. 12,96,000/- (6000 X 12 X 18). 21. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. S. No. 1. Heads Compensation (A) Annual Income of claimant: : Rs. 18,14,400/- 6000 X 12 = 72,000 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (72,000 X 40% = 28800) (72,000 + 28800 = 100800) (C) Multiplier of 18 (100800 X 18 = 1814400/-) (D) Loss of earning capacity 18 (1814400 X 100% = 1814400) 2. Medical Expenses 3. Future Medical Expenses Pains and sufferings 4. Loss of amenities in life 5. Special diet 6. 7. Conveyance 8. Attendant (6000 X 12 X 18) Total Compensation : (+) Rs. 1,63,310/- : (+) Rs. 1,00,000/- : (+) Rs. 1,00,000/- : (+) Rs. 1,00,000/- : (+) Rs. 30,000/- : (+) Rs. 10,000/- : (+) Rs. 12,96,000/- : Rs. 36,13,710/- 22. Now, the Appellant/Claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 36,13,710/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 23. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who was 13 months of age on the date of accident suffered severe injuries in a motor accident over her person. After accident, she went on comma and after long treatment, she could be able to survive. Even if taking best treatment from the hospital in Chhattisgarh, she became permanently disabled by her both hands and both legs. He also contended that even the neck of the claimant bent due to motor- accidental injuries suffered by her. 3 4. Claims Tribunal while assessing compensation towards loss suffered due to permanent disability has assessed income as Rs. 30,000/- per month which is on lower side. Claims Tribunal ought to have considered income of the claimant taking note of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, prevailing on the date of accident. He also contended that in the facts of the case, loss of earning would be 100% and not 80% as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Claims Tribunal has further awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards the pains and sufferings and meagre amount of compensation on other heads which is also very less and prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the appellant and would submit that, admittedly on the date of accident, claimant was only 13 months of age. Learned Claims tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation assessing income of the child aged about 13 months as Rs. 30,000/- per month which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 7. Accident is dated 10.06.2016. Claimant took treatment as inpatient in Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai. She was admitted on 10.06.2016 and discharged on 27.06.2016. Claimant suffered multiple fracture over her person including fracture of clavicle bone, numerous shock (double fracture), lower 1/3rd shaft of radius, fracture of mid-shaft Alna. Claimants have examined the treating Doctor of Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Bhilai i.e. Dr. Kaushlendra 4 Thakur as AW – 4, who in his evidence has stated that from the date of admission of the claimant/child, she was unconscious and went into coma. She was kept in ventilator, however, even after long treatment from 10.06.2016 till 27.06.2016, no satisfactory improvement was seen. She took discharge from the hospital for getting better treatment from other hospital. Head injury suffered by the claimant/injured was very grievous and in such kind of injury, it is difficult to get the patient normal. He is not in a position to say as to when the patient will come to the normal condition. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has considered that what will be the percentage of loss of earning capacity in view of the permanent disability suffered by any person considering the part of the body affected as also, the nature of occupation and held thus: “5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the 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 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 5 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. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]. 6. 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 6 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. 7. 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 non-pecuniary 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. Decisions of this Court and the 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.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 389 has observed as under:- “53. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in TV serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she has been 7 carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other role to be played in TV serials, albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made by this Court and the Karnataka High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the appellant's permanent disability should be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in TV serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability.