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 11lost 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.